
Class &/Z .33— 

Book;____ 

Copyright}! 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



\ 



PRICE, SO CXS. 



GAMBLING 



OUTRAGES; 



OR,- 



IMPROVING THE 



BREED OF HORSES 



-AT THE- 



EXPENSE 



OF- 



Public Morals 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES; 



OR, 



IMPROVING THE BREED 

OF HORSES AT THE EXPENSE OF 

PUBLIC MORALS. 



BY 



ANTHONY COMSTOCK, 

AUTHOR OF " FRAUDS EXPOSED," AND " TRAPS FOR THE VOUNG. 




NEW YORK: 
THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY, 

AGENTS FOR THE TRADE. 






c 



<5 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1887, 

By Anthony Comstock, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 

All rights reserved. 



PREFACE. 



For years the laws against gambling have been openly 
violated. 

Professional gamblers from this and other States have been 
permitted to go from county to county with their unlawful 
paraphernalia and ply their schemes of robbery, surrounded 
by an atmosphere filled with rumors of bribery and corrup- 
tion of officials. 

Public sentiment has sustained the enforcement of the 
laws against these dishonest schemes of getting another's 
property for nothing in New York and Queens Counties. 

For years Kings County has unlawfully afforded gamblers 
opportunity to rob the people and has protected them from 
punishment. 

A judge from the bench as far back as June, 1884, pro- 
claimed these violations of law in Gravesend as " flagrant, 
persistent, and open." Still the warning has been unheeded, 
the laws ever since have continued to be trampled under 
foot, and an appeal to the public is rendered necessary. 
The facts published herein are published because they are 
facts. It is hoped that a full, frank, and faithful history of 
:hese outrages may promote a public sentiment strong enough 
to secure the rigid enforcement of laws as they now exist, 
and defeat the infamous attempt to repeal them in the in- 
terest of professional gamblers. 

Does the Empire State belong to gamblers ? Have the 
people no self-respect left ? Will they allow gamblers, res- 
ident and non-resident of this State, to set at defiance the 

III. 



iv PREFACE. 

laws of the State for a series of years, and then, when the 
demand of the people made of their servants is heard, " Let 
gambling cease," " Let the laws be enforced," can it be pos- 
sible for gamblers to continue to rob the people and still go 
unwhipped of justice ? If not, then read, reflect, and act upon 
the facts presented in this book. The object is to secure 
the proper enforcement of laws against these crimes. 
Honest young men or horses : which ? 

ANTHONY COMSTOCK. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Above the crime of "gambling " stands a greater, viz., the 
"protection of gamblers." Above the "protection of gam- 
blers " is that cowardly silence on the part of good citizens 
under the endorsement of which crime and outrage become 

possible. 

This book is designed to turn the light of historic fact on 
past offences committed by gamblers and officials against 
law, justice, public order, and public morals. 

If the simple record, faithfully presented, prove distasteful 
to those who have failed to do their duty in the suppression 
of gambling crimes, let them reflect that by 'their wilful neg- 
lect they have contributed the- facts which make up this 
history. 

How the Record is Made. 
Affidavits, letters, records of court, or certified copies of 
papers, and extracts of printed matter are presented, when 
possible, to make the history more exact, and enable any, 
who are so disposed, to test the authenticity of this account 
of the latest and most approved methods of " improving the 
breed of horses" by the Kings County gambling system. 

The facts are presented in the order of occurrence. Let 
any who may be wounded by them remember that we simply 
write the history made by themselves. 

We do not propose to entertain the reader by reviling 
where we have been reviled, slandering where we have been 
slandered, or blackguarding where we have been black- 
guarded ; but only with the truth. To all the false and ma- 
licious attacks made upon us in the past we have to oppose 



v 



vl INTRODUCTION. 

the fads. Libels, and insinuations of " blackmail," " fixed by 
gamblers," " silenced so they won't move," " judges and 
courts won't believe him under oath," etc., will be con- 
fronted with matters as they actually occurred and a faith- 
ful statement of what has been done on our part ; and we be- 
lieve that if the reader will but consider what is presented 
he will have no doubt as to the necessity of a rigid enforce- 
ment of laws against these crime-breeders, or to the fidelity 
and efficiency of the New York Society for the Suppression 
of Vice and its agents. 

It is not to be expected but that this book and its author 
will be assailed by similar weapons to those used in the past ; 
but that is no reason why it should not be written and the 
facts submitted to the public. 

Individual interests pale before the more important inter- 
ests of public morals and the future welfare of our youth. 

If morals are worth preserving, and unless our youth are 
to grow up gamblers and thieves, the schools of vice must be 
closed and the gambling passion must be checked. 

Reader, have we earned the right to a fair hearing ? After 
fifteen years of faithful public service, in the face of bitter op- 
position, attempted assassinations, conspiracies and plots to 
ruin our good name and reputation, is it too much for us to ask 
you to spend a few hours in examining the facts concerning 
the non-enforcement of law against gamblers by sworn offi- 
cials, especially as the facts presented are our appeal for the 
enforcement of laws against these crimes and our answer to 
the assaults made upon us by our enemies ! 

Above all else, the presentation of the facts is essential 
to the proper enforcement of law against a small army of 
crime-breeders. Gambling is a monster. Gambling in any 
form is an enemy to be dreaded in any community. It turns 
loose avarice and greed, unhinges common honesty, destroys 
industrious habits, mercilessly robs the poor, and beggars 
helpless women and children. 



INTRODUCTION. V }J 

By appealing to the spirit of cupidity, — of getting some, 
thing for nothing, — it finds many votaries and is regarded 
with popular favor. 

Like rum and lust, it preys upon the community, scatter- 
ing misery and want along its pathway. We propose to at- 
tack this popular vice, and appeal to the reader for a verdict 
against it after the facts in the following pages have been 
considered. 

THE AUTHOR. 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER I. 

METHODS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE. 

For years well known and professional gamblers have 
openly violated the laws of the State in Saratoga and Kings 
Counties. 

Faro, roulette, rouge-et-noir, hazard, sweat, lottery-pol- 
icy, and other banking games, all of which are felonies, to- 
gether with horse pool and the like, have been conducted 
openly. These crimes have been persistent, flagrant, and 
open. 

EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE LAW. 

Honest, clean, and faithful efforts have been made by the 
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice to enforce 
the laws against these demoralizing and evil practices. 

These efforts have been rendered futile by sworn officials 
whose duty it has been to enforce these laws. 

Our plans have been very simple. They have been the 
same as have proven very successful in other instances, and 
briefly stated are : 

First. Good legal evidence against the criminal. 

Second. Arrest the gambler and seize his gambling para- 
phernalia by due process of law. 

Third. Bring gamblers and their traps into court, se- 
cure their conviction and sentence, followed by the destruc- 
tion of their gambling apparatus. 

Our efforts have been met by hostile opposition. This op- 
position has not come so much from gamblers whom we have 

I 



2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

endeavored to bring to justice as from sworn officers of the 
law, whom public rumors and the press have charged with 
shielding and protecting these criminals and their crimes. 

Out of 113 gamblers arrested by us since May 1, 1881, 
followed by indictments in the Sessions Court, in Kings 
County, but one case has ever been convicted and sen- 
tenced in that court. 

Prior to Jan. 1, 1884, Isaac S. Catlin was District Attorney. 
His administration of law against common gamblers indict- 
ed for felonies resulted in the dismissal of over fifty indict- 
ments during the last fifteen days of his term of office. His 
administration is to be credited with the conviction of one of 
our policy gamblers before Judge Moore, during his last 
term of three years. This man, William Stone, was arrested 
May 26, 1881, tried and convicted Feb., 1882, and yet not 
sentenced until Dec, 1882, and then only to a fine of $25, 
under the Revised Statutes, and under a statute which fixed 
as a minimum penalty " not less than ten days' imprison- 
ment and $10 fine." 

Four other men were convicted in the City Court of Brook- 
lyn June, 1882, and yet none of them were sentenced 
throughout Mr. Catlin's term. 

John Y. McKane, chief of police of Gravesend, and eight 
of his subordinates, policemen of that town, were indicted 
Sept., 1883, through our efforts, in spite of opposition to the 
contrary, for violating Section 349, Penal Code, and aiding 
and abetting gamblers. These men knowingly allowed 
gambling to exist, and the policemen were detailed to the 
betting ring to keep the purchasers of pools in line while the 
gambler plied his nefarious trade in violation of law. 

James W. Ridgway has been District Attorney since Jan., 
1884. The following history of what has not been clone 
to suppress gambling will deal with his administration 
largely. 

Early in Mr. Ridgway's term we discovered that Mr. Catlin 



METHODS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE. 3 

or his subordinates had dismissed the fifty odd indictments 
mentioned before. We then applied to Mr. Ridgway for the 
indictment of Mr. Catlin and the reindictment of these com- 
mon gamblers. That made Mr. Catlin hostile to us. 

We went to Mr. Ridgway soon after he came into office 
and assured him of our heartiest co-operation. He assured 
us of his intention to enforce the laws, and that he would be 
glad of our assistance. We believed him. Up to June, 1884, 
we were waiting for him to move upon our complaint against 
Mr. Catlin. We also were expectant concerning the other 
matters which were pending. As he was new in office, and 
it required time to straighten matters out, we did not think 
it strange that our cases were not brought up and disposed 
of. We lived on in hopes. But, as will be disclosed, in 
June, 1884, his sincerity was tested and his opposition was 
seen and felt by us. 

INTEGRITY OF WITNESSES AN ELEMENT OF SUCCESS. 

Let the reader bear in mind that the integrity of the wit- 
ness is an essential element of success in all departments of 
our work. 

To impeach the witness for the people is always the effort 
of counsel for a defendant. It is a common practice of 
many lawyers, especially when they have a hard case to de- 
fend, to assail the witness for the prosecution, throw mud, 
insinuate that the witness has been guilty of some heinous 
offence, or create a suspicion against him by asking " if he 
has not been arrested for some crime ? " etc., even when they 
know they have no ground for such an argument. This is 
done to raise a doubt or awaken a prejudice in the minds of 
the jury, or to degrade the witness before the court. Again 
there is what is commonly called 

"FISHING FOR EVIDENCE." 

There is a little incident which will illustrate this method 



a GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

that occurred in one of our cases in New York City in the 
General Sessions Court, which also shows how sometimes 
" the biter gets bit." 

A man had been indicted, being a common gambler, for 
selling a lottery policy. Mr. C. S. Spencer was defending. 
He went on a fishing expedition with a Mr. Van Pelt, one of 
our former aids. Something like the following scene occurred 
on cross-examination: 

Mr. Spencer (very suave) : Now, Mr. Van Pelt, I have 
one or two questions to ask you and I have done. Please 
speak up so that the farthest juror can hear. 

Q. Where did you live before you came to New York ? 

A. Omaha, Nebraska. 

Q. Now, sir, is it not a fact that during part of the time 
you were in Omaha you were in the penitentiary ? (This in 
a very imperious manner, with a look as much as to say, 
" Take care, sir, what you say. I am after you.") 

A. (meekly) Yes, sir. 

Spencer (very exultant, with a benign look upon the 
jurors, and a most compassionate, " Gentlemen, I shall not 
detain you. I have but one or two more questions to ask this 
witness ") : 

Q. Now, Mr. Van Pelt, just tell the jury how long you 
were in the penitentiary. Now, sir, speak up loud so that 
the farthest gentleman can hear. 

A. (very subduedly) About three years. 

Mr. Spencer, very exultant, with a most profound bow to 
the jury and most compassionate consideration, says, " Gen- 
tlemen, I shall detain you with but one more question," and 
turning to the witness says : 

" Now,' Mr. Van Pelt, I have one more question " (and as 
he speaks he turns toward the assistant District Attorney 
and the writer with a most withering look). " Now, sir, 
please raise your voice so all the jury can hear." 



METHODS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE. 5 

Q. What were you there for? (And Mr. Spencer 
posed in a most striking attitude for his reply.) 

The witness without moving a muscle of his face replied : 

A. I was chief warden. 

It is needless to relate that court and jury were convulsed 
with laughter, while Mr. Spencer dropped into his chair with 
a most demoralized look upon his face. He has since, 
many a time, laughed in the writer's presence over this inci- 
dent. 

These attacks upon us of our opponents are not adopted 
because they have any charge which can be sustained against 
our witnesses, but, as said before, to discredit them or to 
deny plain facts, or to divert public attention from some 
unsavory record which they of their own free will, and by 
neglect of official obligations, have made for themselves. 

In considering the following statements of law and facts 
let the reader ever bear in mind that good legal evidence was 
repeatedly secured against these gamblers, and placed at the dis- 
posal of the prosecuting attorneys. 

UNIMPEACHABLE WITNESSES. 

Good and reliable witnesses were ever ready to appear 
and testify, if they had been called by the District Attorney. 
These witnesses, let it be noted, have never been impeached 
during the past fourteen years of our history. We have 
made more than 1180 arrests down to to-day. These wit- 
nesses, some of them, have been upon the witness stand 
hundreds of times where the utmost latitude of cross-exam- 
ination has been allowed defendants and their counsel. 
We have had arrayed against us the dealers in obscenity 
and their friends, the gamblers and their fraternity, the 
lottery dealers and their millions, the frauds and swindlers 
and their scheming supporters, the so-called liberals, free- 
lovers, quack doctors, ex-convicts, and the National Defence 



5 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Associations, and their advocates, backed by a hostile press ; 
and yet, notwithstanding that all these have plotted and 
conspired against us, and all have come into court and con- 
fronted us while we were at a disadvantage on the witness 
stand, under the cross fire of shrewd, acute, tricky, and 
often unscrupulous counsel, in pay of these opponents— yet 
with all their money, political intriguing, plottings, conspir- 
acies, and insinuations not one of them has been able to lay 
a finger upon a single act that has impeached or would im- 
peach these witnesses. In face of this, Mr. Ridgway, while 
before Governor Hill, Feb. 5, 1887, declared, in his argument 
to dismiss our charges there against him, that 

" NO COURT WOULD BELIEVE US." 

We answered him by showing that out of 75 cases brought 
to trial during 1886 we secured 70 convictions or pleas of 
"guilty." There were three disagreements secured by Mr. 
Ridgway for us in the Jockey Club trials of last October, 
and the other two cases were discharged as follows : one in 
New York in Special Sessions Court, a minor case ; in the 
other, where two men were jointly indicted, the employer 
was convicted and sent to prison, while the accomplice, 
being a clerk, was acquitted. 

We have dwelt upon this matter at the outset, as we have 
been silent under these infamous attacks so long that 
many will take up this work with a prejudice. We have 
therefore defined our position, so that we may have fair deal- 
ing Mid an honest judgment. 

A PART OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE. 

We have secured 624 convictions, where sentences have 
been imposed as follows : 175 years and 10 days' imprison- 
ment and $79,412.95 fines, while $71,700 bail-bonds have 
been forfeited; making a total of $151,112.95 secured for 



METHODS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE. y 

the public treasuries. We also have seized more than 
45 % tons °f contraband matters. 

TABULAR STATEMENT, 

SHOWING A PART OF THE WORK OF THE NEW YORK SOCIETY FOR THE 
SUPPRESSION OF VICE. 



Description. 



Persons arrested in U. S. Courts 

" " " State Courts 

Discharged by committing magistrates 

" " Juries 

Convicted or plead guilty 

Sentenced 

Prisoners absconded 

" re-arrested 

Disagreement by Juries 

Convicted on second trial 

Bail-bonds forfeited 

Years of imprisonment imposed 

Amount of fines imposed 

Convicts pardoned 

STOCK CONFISCATED. 

Books & sheet stock seized & destroyed 

Obscene pictures and photos 

Microscopic pictures for charms, 
knives, etc 

Negative plates for making obscene 
photographs 

Engraved steel and copper plates 

Wood-cuts and electro-plates 

Stereotype plates for printing books, 
etc 

Number of different books 

Lithographic stones destroyed 

Articles for immoral use, of rubber, etc. 

Lead moulds for making obscene mat- 
ter 

Establishments for making same closed 

Indecent playing cards destroyed 

Boxes of pills, powders, used by abor- 
tionists 

Circulars, catalogues, songs, poems, 
etc 

Newspapers containing unlawful ad- 
vertisements or obscene matter. . . 

Open letters seized in possession of 
persons arrested 

Names of dealers as revealed by ac- 
count books of publishers 

Obscene pictures, framed, on walls of 
saloons 

Figures & images seized and destroyed 



Prior to 
January, 1886. 



296 
712 
46 
39 
554 
436 
3i 
37 
13 

$67,900* 
yrs. mos. days 

I7 i , 5 2 i 
$76,150.95* 

17 



36,926 lbs. 
233*594 

7,400 

1,767 
352 
544 

26,423 lbs. 

207 

50 

91,709 

700 lbs. 

6 

6,122 

4,210 

1,411,007 

22,354 

107,461 

6,000 

102 
748 



During 1886. 



$3,800 
yrs. mos. day. 1 
3 6 16 

$3,262 



,036 



55 
26,888 



Total. 



305+ 

8 4 2t 

47 

40 

624 

500 



$71,700 
yrs. days. 
175 10 

$79,412.95 
*9 



36,926 lbs. 
234,630 



I,S02 
352 

544 

26,423 lbs. 

207 

50 

91,900 

700 lbs. 

7 

6, 122 

4,265 

1,437,895 

22,354 

107,605 

6,000 



748 



* Total fines and bail forfeited, $151 



+ Total arrests, 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



Description. 



Prior to 
January, 1886. 



During 



Total. 



Letters, packages, etc., seized in hands 
of dealers, ready for mailing at 
time of arrest 

Names and P. O. addresses to whom 
circulars, etc., may be sent, that 
are sold as matters of merchandise, 
seized in hands of persons arrested. 

Obscene plays stopped, or places of 
amusement closed 

Keno layouts 

Faro layouts 

Roulette layouts 

Rouge-et-noir layouts 

Lottery tickets 

Lottery circulars 

Lotteries suppressed 

Pool tickets 

Sweat boards 

Blackboards 

Deal boxes 

Deal trays 

Packs of cards 

Policy and pool shops raided or closed 

Score cards — pool 

Sheets and books for recording bets. . 

Manifold -books for recording policies 

Gaming tables 

Dream books 

French pool registers.' 

Account books 

Trays for holding pool tickets 

Ivory and composition chips 

Cue boxes 

Tally cards for faro 

Card presses 

Prize packages 

Envelopes for envelope game 

Policy slips 

Iron safes, in gambling saloons 

Miles traveled by agents outside New 
York City 



3,499 and *n 
mail bags full 



52,220 
4 



275,S33 

I53,i8i 

30 

1,159,290 

8 

245 

18 

26 

270 

135 



10,886 

3° 

70 

5 

168 

43 

68,547 

8 

3,084 

4 

2,483 

IM33 

9,336 

7 

239,530 miles 



21,437 

31,783 

3 

160,563 



59 



7 

5i 

,268 

947 

287 

6 



600 
3,176 



3,499 and *n 
mail bags full 



26,900 miles. 



297,270 

184,964 

33 

1,319,853 

8 

3°4 

19 

27 

277 

186 

1,268 

947 

n,i73 

36 

87 

5 

270 

43 

68,597 

8 

3, 84 

5 

2,483 

",733 

12,512 

7 

266,430 



Iii a word, 1,180 arrests have been made and more than 
35% tons °f obscene matter and 10% tons of gambling ma- 
terial, paraphernalia, etc., have been seized and destroyed. 

We submit we have at least earned the right to be 
heard, and that our words may be considered in this im- 
portant matter. 

These malicious attacks upon us but emphasize the truth- 
fulness of the record which we present. They disprove 
nothing. It is, however, a matter to be inquired into by 



* Lottery circulars. 



METHODS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE. g 

thoughtful men that, of all those who have made attacks 
upon the writer of this record during the past year, in 
reference to these cases, it is not the gambler, not the in- 
dicted criminal, who has cause of complaint or who makes 
complaint, but rather it is OFFICIALS and ex-OFFI- 
CIALS, who, when good legal evidence has been brought 
and placed in their hands, have utterly failed to bring these 
criminals to justice or stop the crimes complained of. 
These are the ones who assail our integrity and reputation. 



IO GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER II. 

RE-ELECTION OF MR. RIDGWAY. 

It is said that the re-election of Mr. Ridgway, after he 
had neglected to enforce the laws against gamblers, is an en- 
dorsement of his conduct and a proof that what he has done 
is all right. Two wrongs do not make one right. The State 
of New York, through its Legislature, has enacted stringent 
laws against gambling, as will be seen below. While those 
laws are on the statute-book no sane person will say that 
any citizen or set of citizens has a right to violate them. 
Much less will it be said that professional gamblers, non- 
residents of the State of New York, have a right to come 
into the State and set at defiance our laws with impunity. 

The re-election of Mr. Ridgway may be a source of tri- 
umph and exultation for himself and the gambling fraternity. 
It is not so regarded by right-thinking men. 

Accepting the re-election as a fact, not stopping to argue 
as to how or by what influences or forces he was elected, 
not discussing the elasticity of the consciences of men who 
could, by their votes, say, " Well done, unfaithful servant ; 
continue thou in office," let the reader calmly consider — 

First, the law. 

Then the duties devolving upon District Attorneys and 
other officials. 

And then what has not been done under the solemn obli- 
gations of their oaths of office. 

Because men, ignorant of the facts, or with a wilful intent 
to consent to the outrages against law, order, and justice, or 
at the lash of some political or gambling boss, by their votes 



RE-ELECTION OF MR. RIDG WA Y. l I 

have consented to or have indorsed these wrongs, does 
it make them right or lawful ? Manifestly, no. 

The Penal Code of the State of New York makes any of 
the following crimes a felony, as the penalties may be in 
State's prison. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides 
that whenever the sentence is for more than one year it must 
be in State's prison, and such crime a felony. 

LOTTERY. 

" Sec. 325. Contriving, drawing, etc., lottery.— A person who 
contrives, proposes, or draws a lottery, or assists in contriving, propos- 
ing, or drawing the same, is punishable by imprisonment for not more 
than two years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or 
both." 

WHO ARE COMMON GAMBLERS ? 

" Sec. 344. Common gambler, etc. — A person who is the owner, 
agent, or superintendent of a place, or of any device or apparatus for 
gambling; or who hires, or allows to be used, a room, table, establish- 
ment, or apparatus for such a purpose ; or who engages as dealer, game- 
keeper, or player in any gambling or banking game, where money or 
property is dependent upon the result ; or who sells or offers to sell 
what are commonly called lottery policies, or any writing, paper, or 
document in the nature of a bet, wager, or insurance upon the drawing 
or drawn numbers of any public or private lottery ; or who indorses or 
uses a book, or other document, for the purpose of enabling others to 
sell, or offer to sell, lottery policies, or other such writings, papers, or 
documents, is a common gambler, and punishable by imprisonment for 
not more than two years, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dol- 
lars, or both." 

Concerning pool gambling as prohibited under Section 351 
of the Penal Code, says the Supreme Court of this State, 
General Term at Poughkeepsie, May, 1885 : 

" Sec. 351 of the Penal Code makes either of three things criminal : — 
" If a person keep or occupy a place with the requisite things to record 
bets. 

" If a person do in fact record bets. 

" If an owner or occupant of premises knowingly permit the same to 



12 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

be used for these purposes. Such acts are made misdemeanors." — Peo- 
ple vs. James E. Kelly etal., yj Hun. R. p. — . 

POOL GAMBLING PROHIBITED BY THE CODE. 

"Sec. 351. Bets, etc., on horse races, etc. — A person who keeps 
any room, shed, tenement, tent, booth, or building, or any part thereof, 
or who occupies any place upon any public or private grounds within 
this State, with books, apparatus, or paraphernalia, for the purpose of 
recording or registering bets or wagers, or of selling pools, and any per- 
son who records or registers bets or wagers, or sells pools upon the 
result of any trial or contest of skill, speed, or power of endurance, of 
man or beast, or upon the result of any political nomination, appoint- 
ment, or election; or being the owner, lessee, or occupant of any room, 
shed, tenement, tent, booth or building, or part thereof, knowingly per- 
mits the same to be used or occupied for any of these purposes, or 
therein keeps, exhibits, or employs any device or apparatus for the pur- 
pose of recording or registering such bets or wagers, or the selling of 
such pools, or becomes the custodian or depositary, for hire or reward, 
of any money, property, or thing of value staked, wagered, or pledged 
upon any such result, is punishable by imprisonment for one year, or by 
fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or both." 

As showing how determined the law-makers were that 
these crimes should be suppressed, note the following provi- 
sion of the Penal Code, requiring the seizure of all gambling 
paraphernalia by an)' person required or authorized to arrest 
a person for any offence against any of the foregoing sec- 
tions, and that too without a warrant. 

ON SEIZURE. 

" Sec. 345. Seizure of gambling implements authorized. — A 
person, who is required or authorized to arrest any person for a viola- 
tion of the provisions of this chapter is also authorized and required to 
seize any table, cards, dice, or other apparatus or article suitable for 
gambling purposes, found in the possession or under the control of the 
person so arrested, and to deliver the same to the magistrate before 
whom the person arrested is required to be taken." 



RE-ELECTION OF MR. RIDG WA Y. x 3 



NOTE, ESPECIALLY, THE DUTY OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, 
SHERIFFS, AND OTHER PEACE OFFICERS. 

11 Sec. 349. Certain officers directed to prosecute offences 
under this chapter. — It is the duty of all sheriffs, constables, police 
officers, and prosecuting or district attorneys to inform against and 
prosecute all persons whom they have reason to believe offenders 
against the provisions of this chapter, and any omission so to do is 
punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars." 

The " chapter " referred to is Chapter IX., Penal Code. 
Sections from 343 to 351 inclusive are in Chapter IX., and 
therefore within the provisions of Sections 345 and 349. 

That the community may further comprehend the responsi- 
bility and dutyoi the District Attorney, we copy from the oath 
of office of James W. Ridgway, filed November 27, 1883, in 
the County Clerk's office of the City of Brooklyn. It is 
sworn to before George G. Barnard, " Deputy Clerk of the 
County of Kings," as follows : — 

"I, James W. Ridgway, do solemnly swear that I will support the 
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of 
New York : and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office 
of District Attorney of the County of Kings according to the best of my 
ability. * * * (signed) James W. Ridgway." 

On the thirtieth day of November, 1880, the same oath 
was filed and sworn to before the deputy clerk, Mr. George 
G. Barnard, by Isaac S. Catlin. 

The foregoing laws existed while Mr. Isaac S. Catlin was 
District Attorney. 

BRIGHTON BEACH CHARTER. 

The Brighton Beach Racing Association of Brighton 
Beach filed their articles of incorporation with the Secretary 
of State of the State of New York, February 17, 1882. As 
soon as the race track was open pool gambling in the most 



I4 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

open and bold maimer commenced, under the protection and 
fostering care of local officials ; and in September, 1883, the 
agents of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice 
caused the arrest of John Y. McKane, chief of police of the 
town of Gravesend, and eight of his subordinates, all of 
whom were indicted by the Grand Jury for " knowingly aid- 
ing and abetting " gamblers or for violation of Sections 349 
and 351 of the Penal Code aforesaid. Neither McKane nor 
any of his subordinates have ever been tried. 

THE CONEY ISLAND JOCKEY CLUB 

filed their articles of incorporation at Albany, with the 
Secretary of State, July 3, 1879. At its race course there 
were more than fifty booths occupied by from two to three 
gamblers in each, openly violating the law. At least fifty 
of those same booths were occupied during the season 
of 1886, if the testimony of James E. Kelly, the boss 
gambler, who rented the privilege from the Coney Island 
Jockey Club, is to be believed, as given under oath in the 
trial of the Jockey Club before Judge Moore last October. 

In reference to the facts concerning the administration of 
law against these crimes by Isaac S. Catlin, under his oath 
of office, we have simply to present the word and statement 
of Mr. Catlin, as made in the Brooklyn Eagle of October 11, 
1886, without going into further details. He says : 

'* For five of the six years of my incumbency of the District Attorney's 
office pool gambling was carried on on two tracks at Coney Island, abso- 
lutely without complaint from any source. I concede that I did not 
during these five years, during which everybody seemed to acquiesce in 
the matter, take any steps towards stopping pool selling. Mr. Comstock 
will likely at once condemn this as a gross violation of his favorite 
Section 349, of the Penal Code, and will proceed to explain its wicked- 
ness to the Committee on Investigation." 

The record speaks for itself and carries with it its own 
condemnation. We simply desire to assure the reader that 



CATLIN' S RECORD. ^ 

his statements are true, that the laws were openly violated, 
and that he did not take any effectual steps towards stopping 
the violations of law. His oath of office may not have 
much of any value with the public now, but his word is 
correct about this. We simply contribute our mite towards 
establishing him in the truth in this respect at least. 

The statement that "everybody acquiesced" is not true. 
The crimes were denounced by different papers in 1882 and 
1883, particularly The Unio?i and New York papers, while 
they were frequently complained of to Mr. Catlin by the 
representatives of this Society. 

But as Mr. Catlin has retired to private life, and has not 
the enforcement of the law against these criminals in his 
hands, it is proposed to leave him with his record, offering 
our services, at any time in the future he may require, to 
confirm him whenever he shall attempt to present a faithful 
record of his doings to the community, especially in matters 
where we know he is telling the truth. Which is the 
weaker, Mr. Catlin's " oath " or the " best of his ability " ? 

The following synopsis will illustrate his respect for his 
oath of office and the duties imposed upon him by Section 
349, which he treats so flippantly, and also his " best 
ability." 

MR. CATLIN'S RECORD. 

Total number of indictments found against gamblers during 1881, 

1882, and 1883 97 

Total number of persons tried and convicted .... 5 

Tbtar number of persons sentenced after conviction - 1 

Total number of indictments improperly dismissed, during the last 

ten days of Catlin's term 57 

Total indictments remaining untried (on some of which the 

defendants never pleaded) 34 

These figures are taken from the testimony of Messrs. 
Catlin and Ridgway as given before the Bacon Investigating 
Committee in March, 1887. 



j5 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

We require no better witness to prove the maladministra- 
tion of law against gambling during Mr. Catlin's terms 
than his own witness, Isaac S. Catlin. 

WHAT PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT ARE VIOLATED 
BY THESE UNLAWFUL GAMBLING GAMES ? 

Some one will say : " What ! do you object to gentlemen 
betting between themselves upon a horse race ? Why, that 
is fanatical ! " I reply that that question is not involved. 
The question of two individuals betting between themselves 
is not embraced under this statute nor in this discussion. 
The right of any two gentlemen to make a bet between 
themselves may be a matter of taste, and should not be con- 
fused with the only question involved in the administration 
of law under Section 351, to wit: May professional 
gamblers defy the laws of this State, violate the fundamental 
principles of government, and, in defiance of decisions at 
Common Law and the Court of Appeals to the contrary, 
set up their gambling paraphernalia in the midst of multi- 
tudes of pleasure seekers, and in " persistent, flagrant, and 
open " violation of stringent law to the contrary rob and 
plunder the public ? That is the question, and the only 
question. It is a 

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNMENT 

that a person shall not be deprived of his money or property 
without a just and fair equivalent. 

Says that eminent jurist, Judge Catron, whose opinions, 
delivered from the supreme bench both of the State of 
Tennessee and of the nation, will ever be regarded as of the 
highest authority, in the celebrated case of " The State vs. 
Smith & Lane" (2 Yer. Tenn. R.) : 

" The presumption of law is that every man has acquired his property 
honestly ; and it is the policy of every well-regulated government that he 



EVIL OF GAMBLING DEFINED. X n 

shall not be deprived of it without a fair equivalent. This is particularly 
the case in Republics, where all should be independent in the means of 
subsistence." 

In the same case this learned Judge paints a picture of 
the effects of gaming which may well be considered at this 
time. He says : 

" Gaming is a general evil, leads to vicious inclinations, destruction of 
morals, abandonment of industry and honest employments, a loss of 
self-control and respect. Frauds, forgeries, thefts, make up the black 
catalogue of crime, the closing scene of which generally ends in highway 
robbery or murder. The American and European journals are full of cases 
of the most distressing nature of bankers, merchants, clerks of banking 
institutions, men in almost every department of trust, public and private, 
becoming bankrupts and thieves, to the ruin of themselves and others. 
Look for the source of their misfortune : you find it in lotteries, loo, 
faro, thimble, dice, and the ft'/ee." 

Under Common Law gambling per se was not indictable^ 
and yet " the keeping of a common gambling house " or place 
for the public to gamble was indictable. 

Says the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, con- 
cerning pool gambling : 

" The evident intention of the Legislature was to discourage and repress 
gambling in all its forms, including bets and wagers and every species of 
wager contracts of hazard, as a great public mischief calling for ef- 
fective measures uf prevention and remedy." — (Ruckman vs. Pitcher, 
i N. Y. page 450.) 

In this connection let it be remembered that this system of 
"improving the breed of horses," as it is now erroneously 
styled by its advocates, mortgages a large number of voters to 
the gambling fraternity. It gives unscrupulous men an op- 
portunity to put the thumb of blackmail upon their struggling 
victims. The young clerk, crazed by the hope of gain, steals 
from his employer. He stakes all and loses. In his des- 
peration he goes to the gambler, begging him to return his 
money, and oftentimes places himself entirely within the 

2 



jg GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

control of the gambler by confessing his guilt. The confes- 
sion of guilt is made as a plea to the gambler to give up 
his ill-gotten gain, that the clerk may return the stolen funds ; 
but, instead of giving it up, many are the cases where the con- 
fession is held as a terror over the victim's head and he is 
made to do the gambler's bidding. Many a suicide follows 
the treachery of these unscrupulous robbers. 

POLITICAL REASONS. 

From a political standpoint these crimes have no place in 
any Republic or civilized community. No words seem 
more appropriate in this connection than to repeat the 
words of that eminent jurist already referred to (Catron), 
where, in the foregoing case cited, he uses the following lan- 
guage, which ought to be considered as words of warning by 
every thoughtful citizen. He says : 

" Reduce a man to want, by gaming or otherwise, and he is no longer 
free to exercise the elective franchise, but dependent upon the hand that 
furnishes himself and family with bread. Not only ruin and beggary. 
but drunkenness, are almost uniformly the effect of gaming. The two 
vices combined are more likely to sap the foundation of our institutions 
than all others put together. Destroy freedom of thought and indepen- 
dence of action in voting at primary elections of the people, and the 
idea of governing by majorities is a farce, the popular will a delusion, 
bowing to the dictation of the wealthy minority." 

From a patriotic standpoint he says : 

" The patriot, anxious for the prosperity of his country and the dura- 
bility of her institutions, repines at the thought of seeing the haggard, 
hungry, and naked gamblers, or the besotted drunkard, dragged to the 
polls and forced to vote at the beck of his, I might almost say, master, 
and he a champion of the loo table or faro bank. In pecuniary means a 
political power, knavery rises upon the ruins of honesty and indepen- 
dence. Wheresoever in these Republics gaming is in any shape tol- 
erated, pauperism, supported by the government, is in nine instances out 
cf ten the consequence of it and its kindred vice, drunkenness." 



MORALS. INDUSTRIOUS HABITS. jg 



MORAL STANDPOINT. 

From a moral standpoint this eminent jurist speaks no less 
earnestly and emphatically ; and no words that I can com- 
mand, -and no legal authority of the hundreds bearing upon 
this subject could be weightier or more important as words of 
warning than his when he says, in speaking of the gambling 
passion : 

" Like other passions which agitate the great mass of the community, it 
lies dormant until once aroused, and then, with the contagion and fury 
of a pestilence, it sweeps morals, motives to honest pursuits and industry 
into the vortex of vice, unhinges the principles of religion and common 
honesty ; the mind becomes ungovernable, and is destroyed to all useful 
purposes ; chances to successful gambling alone are looked to for pros- 
perity in life, even for the daily means of sustenance ; trembling anxiety 
for success in lotteries, at the faro bank or loo table exclude all other 
thoughts. Expectation is disappointed ; more losses are sustained ; 
.... swindling, forgery, theft, every crime that extreme necessity and 
outcast desperation can suggest to men lost to all moral ties, though 
guarded against, are likely shortly to follow in the train." 

Under the head of " Special Arguments " in favor of this 
system of " improving the breed of horses " will be found 
instances from life supporting this wonderful description of 
the effect of the monster evil — gambling. 

INDUSTRIOUS HABITS. 

But this learned Judge does not stop here ; he goes farther 
and shows its effects upon industrious habits. He says : 

" Gaming in any and every shape lays itself at the root of industrious 
habits. Where is the man, or the woman, who will labor at home or 
abroad patiently to earn a few shillings by the day, when excited by the 
hope of winning $10,000, or $100,000 in a lottery ? All rest in anxious 
expectation of the highest or a very high prize. Where is the profes- 
sional man or mechanic who will toil at his vocation and acquire by shil- 
lings, when his. mind is diseased by similar hopes \, We know he 



20 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

abandons his calling, and relies upon gambling chances for his own and 
his family's support; the man is a vagrant in mind, and must beg, swin- 
dle, steal, or starve." 

Says the " Encyclopaedia Americana," Vol. III., under Gam- 
bling :* 

" In England, at common law, it was held a common gambling house, 
kept for lucre or gain, was per se a common nuisance, as it tends to draw 
together idle and evil-disposed persons, to corrupt their morals and ruin 
their fortunes ; being the same reasons given in the case of houses of 
common prostitution."— (King vs. Rogers and Humphreys.) 

Does pool gambling as conducted at Coney Island and 
Saratoga draw together idle and evil-disposed persons to the 
corruption of their morals ? 

" In the United States, the keeping of a common gambling house is 
indictable at common law on account of \X% evil influence on public morals." 
— (i Bish. Crim. Law, 504; 1 Rus. 3 Eng. Ed. 325 ; U. S. vs. Dixon, 4 
Cran. Jr. C. C. 107; State w. Savannah, T. W. P. Charl. 235; State 
w.Doon, R. M. Charl. 1.) 

Again, on page 181, in speaking of the odds against the 
gambler's victim, it says : 

" Adroitness, cunning, experience at manipulating cards, sleight-of- 
hand, skill, and practice in trickery, robbery by trick and device, a keen 
knowledge of human nature and the weakness of mankind when 
aroused by greed, contend against ignorance, folly, blinded hopes, cloud 
ed judgment, and often distress, desperation, and a brain fired and 
unbalanced by the wine-cup." 

COMMON LAW. 

The Common Law principle, upon which " common gam- 
bling houses " are indictable, is notoriously violated when 
the pool gamblers at the Coney Island Jockey Club, Brigh- 
ton Beach, Saratoga, or any other race track in this State, 
are permitted to set up their gambling paraphernalia in the 



Supplement to " Encyclopaedia Fritannica." 



EFFECTS UPON THE YOUTH. 21 

midst of throngs of people and there exert their demoraliz- 
ing influences upon mixed assemblies. 

It cannot be denied that the effect upon the minds of 
many a youth is bewildering in the extreme ; that the ex- 
citement, magnetism, and pressure of the crowd, the eager 
expectancy and hope of winning, and the general rush and 
excitement of the throng, with the enticing odds offered, and 
invitations of the gambler " to come up and bet," all serve 
to push the poor victim beyond his resources, until judg- 
ment is displaced by the eager expectation of what he may 
receive, and moral restraint gives way to disappointment, 
desperation, and anxious hope. 



22 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER III. 

WHO THE GAMBLERS ARE. 

In view of the individual, political, patriotic, loyal, and 
moral reasons given why this scourge should be abated, 
it will be of interest to consider 

WHO ARE THE GAMBLERS. 

It is well for the people to know who it is that violates the 
law with immunity from punishment. Who are the gam- 
blers who, residing outside of the city of Brooklyn, have 
more control in the administration of the affairs of Kings 
County than resident law-abiding citizens have, who have a 
monopoly of violating laws, and who have the power and 
the influence, year after year, to say : " The laws of the State 
of New York against gambling shall not be enforced in 
Kings County " ? 

WHO ARE THE GAMBLERS IN KINGS COUNTY ? 

In Kings County, at the Coney Island Jockey Club race 
track, there were last season, and for years past, men from 
Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey, to say nothing of 
the rank and file from some of the leading gambling saloons 
in the city of New York. James E. Kelly testified before 
Judge Moore's court last October, that he rented the 
fifty booths of the Coney Island Jockey Club for the season. 
But he did not tell (indeed, he was not asked the question 
by Mr. Ridgway, who examined him) whether he knew that 
each one of these booths paid the Jockey Club for the pur- 
pose of gambling $100 an afternoon (or a total of $5000). 
This $100 each afternoon was paid for the use of a booth 



WHO THE GAMBLERS ARE. 2 \ 

four feet square, with a table and two chairs that, at the out- 
side, could not have cost more than $10. 

March 19, 1887, before the Bacon Legislative Investi- 
gating Committee, James E. Kelly swore that the largest 
amount he ever paid the Coney Island Jockey Club was 
$5100 per day, and that he had taken in "as much as fifty 
thousand dollars in a day " (page 511, Report) from French 
and auction pools. When asked what portion of the booths 
he occupied when he took in this sum, he declared : " I had 
charge of the auction and French pools at that time/' 
John Y. McKane, chief of police, also swore that he con- 
structed the booths, and that they were each about four feet 
square. Just think of it : $100 per day for a space four feet 
square ! 

James E. Kelly has been for more than twenty years a 
gambler. He is known as " Kelly & Bliss," of 15 West 
Twenty-eighth Street, and formerly was located at Long 
Island City, where in October, 1882, he was indicted, and 
upon search warrants issued by the Honorable Jasper S. 
Gilbert, then justice of the Supreme Court, his place was 
effectually raided, the paraphernalia seized, and he and his 
crew driven out of that city. It will be remembered that 
durino- 1881 and 1882 the better class of citizens of Queens 
County endeavored to dislodge the gamblers from their 
stronghold in that county. A Law and Order Society was 
formed. They appealed to the sheriff and to the local author- 
ities, but appealed in vain. It was found that these officials 
were subjugated to the gamblers' will, and that the gamblers 
had more control over them than the citizens who demanded 
the enforcement of the law. 

The Law and Order Society appealed to the New York 
Society for the Suppression of Vice for assistance. We 
secured the evidence, and on the 9th day of October, 1882, 
.raided four notorious places known as "Kelly & Bliss," 
"Johnson & Co.," "William Lovell," and "White & Co." 



24 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Dislodged from Queens County, these gamblers then 
went to Kings County, where ever since, under the fostering 
care and protection of local authorities, they have been per- 
mitted to violate the law with immunity from punishment. 

James E. Kelly was arrested May, 1884, in New York, by the 
agents of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, for record- 
ing bets at Jerome Park. June 16, 1884, he pleaded 
"guilty" in Special Sessions Court, and was fined $100 for 
said offence. Two of his assistants, known as Thomas 
Murray and John S. Stow, also pleaded "guilty" the same 
day in the same court, and each was fined. After paying 
their fines these men went over to Kings County and violated 
the same laws ; and the same afternoon the agents of the 
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice secured the 
evidence against them, and afterwards caused them to be 
indicted for said offences, as will be more clearly seen a little 
farther on. Daniel Gleason is also known as a partner, or 
employ^ of James E. Kelly, and was also indicted at the 
same time for an offence committed June 16, 1884, in Kings 
County. 

Michael Murray was also before the Special Sessions 
Court, New York City, June 16, 1884, at the same time that 
Kelly and his men pleaded. He had been arrested for a 
like offence at Jerome Park. On motion of his counsel his 
case was set over till Oct., 1884, when he and his two pals, 
James Varly and Daniel Wartzfelder, each pleaded " guilty " 
and were each sentenced to pay a fine. 

The three men last named were also, the same afternoon 
(June 16, 1884), violating the law again at Sheepshead Bay, 
and were subsequently indicted for said offences in Kings 
County upon our complaints. 

Michael Murray is better known as " Big Mike " Murray, 
boss gambler, of No. 19 West Twenty-eighth Street, New 
York City, where he is also known as " Murray & Cridge," 
and "Cridge & Company," and also "Cridge & Co.," No. 56 



WHO THE GAMBLERS ARE. 2 $ 

New Street. In this man's establishment in New York, June, 
1884, we seized three roulette wheels and layouts, three faro- 
banks and layouts, three poker tables, one sweat table, 100 
dice, 80,000 pool tickets, fifteen blackboards, etc. 

John T. McDougall, of Hoboken, N. J., ran a gambling 
booth at Sheepshead Bay. He is said to be a brother of the 
notorious Dougal McDougall who was formerly arrested as 
the Tattersall Turf Club, of No. 43 Broadway, New York 
City. Dougal endeavored to protect his unlawful business 
there by swearing out an injunction restraining the writer 
from interfering with him, on the ground that there was 
nothing unlawful carried on, and that we proposed to inter- 
fere with his lawful and legitimate calling, etc. This was in 
July, 1882. 

As he is to figure prominently as a willing tool of Mr. 
Ridgway's and the gamblers' in this book, a little insight 
into his character will be of interest. 

In securing his injunction he swore, according to a copy 
which his counsel served upon us in a proceeding had in the 
Supreme Court, as follows : 

Tattersall's Turf Club, 

vs. 
Anthony Comstock. 

City and County of New York, ss. 

Dougal McDougall, being duly sworn, says : 

" That the plaintiff's organization is entirely a private organization, so 
far as the public is concerned. That the public are at no time admitted 
to the rooms of the plaintiff, and are at no time permitted to avail 
themselves of the privileges thereof." 

Notwithstanding the above, this place, before we raided it, 
was thronged daily with the betting fraternity. He further 
swears: 

" That no betting or gambling of any kind is permitted in the rooms 
of the plaintiff, and none has ever taken place there, nor would the same be 
tolerated therein. " 



2 6 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

He also further swore in another place, and we ask care- 
ful attention to what he swears to, to wit : — 

" In no way keeps, hires, or occupies any room, or rooms, with appara- 
tus or paraphernalia for the purpose of receiving or registering bets or 
wagers, or sells for money pools upon the result of trials or contests of 
speed of horses. (Signed) U. McDougall." 

This was dated July 25, 1882, and on the same date an in- 
junction was served upon us. 

Our agents had previously been into this place, and had 
secured most absolute evidence against McDougall and his 
unlawful business. He kept one of the most extensive 
gambling establishments for selling pools and recording 
bets and wagers that then existed anywhere. Honest John 
McKean was then District Attorney. The matter was 
brought to his notice. He took our witnesses immediately 
before the learned and beloved Recorder of New York 
City. Warrants and search warrants were issued and, not- 
withstanding the injunction, Dougal McDougall was arrested, 
and about quarter of a million pool tickets were seized in 
the premises which he swore so glibly about as aforesaid. 
There was also found there a large number of blackboards 
and other gambling paraphernalia. 

Dougal was indicted. Afterwards he pleaded guilty to 
two indictments, was sentenced on one, and sentence sus- 
pended on the other, pending his good behavior. This 
man of elastic conscience is the one whom Mr. Ridgway 
found so willing to aid him in a little scheme to befog the 
public mind and manufacture capital against the Society's 
efforts to secure the enforcement of the law against Coney 
Island gamblers, as will more fully appear hereafter. 

William Lovell, another boss gambler, has places in 
Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York City. He has 
been convicted in New Jersey. He was one of the boss 
gamblers at Queens County in 1882, and was also indicted 



WHO THE GAMBLERS ARE. 27 

and successfully driven out from Long Island City at the 
time of the celebrated raid made upon the gamblers in 
October, 1882, by the agents of the New York Society for 
the Suppression of Vice. 

Martin Jordan, alias Mark Jordan, is the reputed partner 
of Lovell at 39 West Twenty-eighth Street, New York 
City. 

W. H. .Johnson is another boss gambler, known as " W. 
H. Johnson & Co.," of Sheepshead Bay, and "Johnson 
& Co.," Long Island City, with headquarters also in New 
York. David J. Johnson, known as " Johnson & Applebee," 
is also another boss gambler who has been repeatedly ar- 
rested. 

James Dunn resides at Fairview, N. J. He had charge 
of the French pool at Sheepshead Bay. 

Alfred H. Cridge, of Philadelphia, is presumed to be the 
partner of " Big Mike " Murray. These men are regarded 
as among the first book-makers or pool gamblers of the 
country. 

The Coney Island Jockey Club, of New York City, own 
and control the race course at Sheepshead Bay, in the 
town of Gravesend. 

Among the charter members and managers of this club 
are, Leonard Jerome, P. S. Forbes, John G. Heckscher, 
Thomas M. Foote, Eugene M. Jerome. 

The active officials last year were J. G. K. Lawrence and 
A. W. Sanford. 

These men gamble ? Oh, no ! Preposterous to even sus- 
pect it of them ! They only allow James E. Kelly, " Big 
Mike" Murray, Lovell, Johnson, Cridge, McDougall & 
Co. to manage this branch of "improving the breed of 
horses," provided' each booth, of the fifty or more, pays the 
club at least $100 per afternoon each race day. 

The advocates of this science of cultivating horseflesh 
declare that " if pool gambling is stopped horse-racing will 



28 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



be ruined." It is claimed that the " poor " men aforesaid, 
who compose the club, cannot afford to keep up the races 
without the help and assistance of the gamblers' profits. 

In other words, the jockey clubs are practically in this 
position : If gamblers can be permitted to plunder the 
people by their gambling schemes in violation of law, and 
then divide their ill-gotten gains with them, they will race 
horses. 

Gen. Daniel Butterfleld, one of the directors of the Coney 
Island Jockey Club, May 23, 1887, while before Governor 
Hill advocating the passage of the infamous Ives Pool Bill, 
used as an argument in behalf of this bill the fact that his 
club had received since the club started in 1879 the sum of 
$1,144,000, and had paid out this entire amount to horse 
owners. 

He produced papers to show that the first year his club 
received over $81,000. In 1885 over $225,000, and in 1886 
over $237,000. He did not, however, show how much of 
these immense sums each year had been made up from em- 
bezzlements, defalcations, thefts, robberies, and breaches of 
trust committed by the gamblers' victims. He did not show 
how many homes had been wrecked, how many families beg- 
gared, how many characters had been ruined in order to en- 
able the gamblers to turn over the hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, which they do annually, of blood money, for the ben- 
efit of his club, so that his club might furnish the foundation 
of the scheme by which the gambler might rake in the 
shekels of the weak and unwary. It is the general public 
that are taxed for the benefit of horse owners, and this tax 
is collected by the gambling booths at the race track and 
paid over to the Jockey Club, and this, too, utterly regard- 
less of what the effects upon public morals may be. 

" Horse owners " is a very indefinite term. It embraces 
members of the club, gamblers, etc., and is principally made 



WHA T GAMBLERS MUST DO EACH DA Y. 2g 

up of those who have a direct connection or interest in the 
success of the gamblers' schemes. 

WHAT GAMBLERS MUST DO EACH DAY. 

What does it cost each booth to improve the breed of 
horses by this Kings County system ? 

Let us illustrate. Note the following bill of expenses : 

James E. Kelly, boss gambler : 

To expenses of running one 4x4 'booth at the Sheepshead Bay race 
course. 

Dr. 

To rent Coney Island Jockey Club one afternoon $100 00 

To salaries of three men to attend booth daily, $10 each 30 00 

To carfare for three men and return to New York, daily, 40 cts. 1 20 
To lunch and incidental expenses, three men 5 00 

Total expenses each race day $136 20 

As has been shown, more than $5000 per day is paid for 
rent alone. Multiply the total expense by 50 and we find 
that the modest amount of $6,810.00 is required to be taken 
out of the public by the gamblers each afternoon before they 
can turn a dollar's profit to themselves. This club runs 20 
days each year — $6,810 by 2o=$i36,2oo. The public must 
pay this large amount for the gamblers' expenses. Does 
any one suppose these gentry labor for the poor horse with- 
out pay ? or that they are allowed to openly violate the law 
without paying some one roundly for its privilege and pro- 
tection ? No one is so simple-minded. 

At Brighton Beach the Brighton Beach Racing Associ- 
ation appear to control this horse-improving system them- 
selves. The charter members are named in their charter as 
follows : 

Wm. A. Engeman, Wm. H. Stillwell, C. J. Bergen, James 
McGowan, Geo. S. Mackenzie, Howard Fitzpatrick, and 
Joseph McMahon. 



30 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



The managers last year were such horse-wise and enthu- 
siastic breeders as Geo. H. Engeman, vice-president and 
manager, and A. H. Battersby, superintendent and cashier. 

March 26, 1887, one Mitchell, a former clerk of this as- 
sociation, swore, before the Bacon Legislative Investigating 
Committee, that there were eight French registering ma- 
chines for recording pools, and that they received as high as 
$80,000 per day from this source on this race course. In 
1884 they had more than 125 days of improving the breed of 
horses by this system. 

The fraternity aforesaid are the ones in whose interests 
the laws are abrogated — the ones who have such powerful 
and subtle influence as to continue to violate the law of the 
State year after year, and so paralyze the arm of justice that 
it cannot reach them. They have treated courts, Legislature, 
and law-abiding citizens with contempt. 

What is the meritorious element of the gambling business 
that places its adherents above laws and justice ? A full 
answer may be found in the fact that they divide their ill- 
gotten gains with the " poor " jockey-club men, who, in return 
therefor are willing to improve the breed of horses at the ex- 
pense of law, order, and public morals. 

The horse race is a basis for the gambler's traffic. 

Prior to 1885 efforts had repeatedly been made to license 
these crimes. 

In 1885 a petition, signed by a number of prominent 
men in Brooklyn and New York, was sent to the Legislature, 
practically brazenly asking them to " improve the breed 
of horses " by allowing gamblers to ply their traffic for 60 
days each year upon each agricultural fair ground and race 
track in the State. 

Some of the facts found in Chapter XII. on " Special 
Arguments " were presented to the Legislature, and this peti- 
tion and effort in the interest of gamblers failed. 

Again, in 1887, the same bill was introduced by Assembly- 



EFFORT TO CHANGE LAWS. ^ 

man Finn, and referred to the Judiciary Committee of the 
Assembly, where it received an adverse report. 

Not to be outdone, February 25, 1887, Assemblyman Ives 
introduced another bill, which contained very peculiar pro- 
visions. It was introduced, as is stated, on behalf of the 
American and Coney Island Jockey Clubs, and was entitled : 

" An Act to provide for the taxation of facing associations, and to 
prescribe the period each year during which racing may take place upon 
the grounds of associations incorporated for the purpose of improving 
the breed of horses." 

Sec i provides a tax of 5 per cent, upon the gross receipts for admis- 
sion to any race course, to be paid to the Comptroller of the State before 
the 15th day of December each year. 

Provided, that all associations within 20 miles of New York or Brook- 
lyn shall be taxed not less than $4000, except in the case of such as- 
sociations as shall confine themselves to holding trotting races, when it 
shall be $1000, and these taxes, whatever they be, must be paid each 
year before the first day of April. 

Generous souls, these, to go to the Legislature and peti- 
tion that they may be taxed to improve the breed of 
horses ! Why not make a voluntary contribution without an 
Act of the Legislature, if they are so very zealous for the 
poor horse ? 

But in order that the poor horse shall not get cheated, 
Section 2 obliges every president and treasurer of each 
association to make a report to the comptroller, before the 
15th day of November of each year, of the gross receipts. 
This report must be under oath. 

Then, to make it doubly sure that the horse is not de- 
frauded, in case his professed friends become lukewarm or 
neglectful, Section 3 authorizes the comptroller to examine 
their books, fix and determine the amount of tax, and collect 
the same. 

Section 5 then provided that the revenues thus received 
and collected by the comptroller shall be annually disbursed 
on behalf of the State for prizes for improving the breed of 



* 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

" cattle, sheep, and horses at the various State and county 
fairs," all under the direction of the governor. 

Political jugglery and gambling intriguing combined ! 
This is a sop to the farmers of the State and to country mem- 
bers of the Legislature. They would have it appear that 
there is a bonanza ahead for stock-raisers. This all looks 
plausible and very persuasive. Magnificent liberality! 
The advocates of this bill desire the law-makers of the State 
to oblige them to be thus taxed, for the benefit of improving 
" cattle, sheep, and horses." But sad to say, Section 4 con- 
tains the " nigger in the fence," as appears in the following 
words, to wit : 

"And the provisions of Section 351, Penal Code, shall not apply to the 
grounds of such associations during the thirty days in each year during 
which the said races are hereby authorized." 

Not one word about improving the morals of the com- 
munity. Not a cent for improving the rank and file of our 
young men. Not a dollar towards encouraging honesty, 
morality, and fair dealing for farmers' sons. But, rather, a 
purse for a county fair to offer for improved sheep, cattle, 
and horses, provided the professional gambler of this and 
other States may have the privilege of fleecing the unwary 
and impoverishing the poor by their gambling schemes of 
robbery. The Coney Island Jockey Club of Sheepshead 
Bay to pay a tax of $4000, each year, provided Section 351 is 
suspended, so that professional gamblers may be permitted to 
plunder the public on their grounds, and pay them $5000 per 
day out of the blood money. What a monstrosity ! 



WHA T HAS BEEN DONE ? 33 



CHAPTER IV. 

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ? 
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE ? 

In the presence of law, official obligation, and oath of 
office, political, patriotic, and moral considerations, what has 
been done in Kings County to prevent the wide-spread pes- 
tilence of pool and other gambling games ? The New York 
Society for the Suppression of Vice answers : 

" We have, year after year, secured legal evidence against professional 
gamblers openly violating the law ; we have endeavored to apply the 
same remedies that have proven effectual in hundreds of other cases; 
and yet our efforts have been thwarted by those whose solemn duty it 
has been, and now is, to enforce these laws." 

Year after year these officials have wilfully taken it upon 
themselves to prevent the punishment of these gamblers, 
and to hinder this organization from applying the usual rem- 
edy, to wit: " the punishment of the gambler, and the destruc- 
tion of his unlawful paraphernalia " from going into effect. 

CONSIDERATIONS. 

The question will be asked, What are the considerations 
greater than the welfare of the community, the defence of 
the principles of our institutions of free government, obedi- 
ence to the command of the law, the protection of public 
order and morals, and the binding obligation of the oath of 
office, which can possibly be presented to District Attorneys 
and courts to induce them to sacrifice every principle of 
patriotism and morality involved, in order to perpetuate, de- 
3 



.,. GAMBLING OUTRA GES 

fend, and shield from punishment these criminals and their 
crimes ? 

Read the following facts, and then say whether or no the 
demand that these gambling crimes cease, and that these 
professional gamblers be punished, shall remain longer un- 
answered. Consider the outrages against law, order, and 
public morals, the scandal upon the administration of justice, 
and the shameful contempt put upon the ccurts in the past 
by these lawless gamblers. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

Mr. James W. Ridgway was waited upon early in January, 
18S4, and assured of the hearty co-operation of the New 
York Society for the Suppression of Vice and its agents. 
His attention was called to the fact that a large number of 
indictments against gamblers were then pending in his office. 
He professed great sincerity of purpose, requested the writer 
to procure a list of all the indictments then remaining un- 
tried, promised to give the same prompt consideration and 
have the parties called and prosecuted. It was while exam- 
ining this list of untried cases that we discovered that more 
than fifty indictments had been dismissed during the last 
month of Mr. Isaac S. Catlin's administration. A report 
was made in affidavit form to Mr. Ridgway on the 10th 
day of February, 1884, which paper was personally delivered 
to him on that day, as follows : — 



City of Brooklyn, 

County of Kings, 

and State of New York. 



(copy.) 
> ss. 



Anthony Comstock, of 150 Nassau Street, New York City, being duly 
sworn, deposes and says that he is Secretary and Chief Special Agent 
of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. That he has just 
cause to believe, and verily does believe, that Isaac S. Catlin was District 
Attorney in and for the County of Kings during the years 188 1, 1882, and 



CHARGES AGAINST ISAAC S. CATLIN. 



35 



1883. That in the spring of 1881 Isaac S. Catlin, then District Attor- 
ney, sent for deponent and informed deponent that Governor Cornell 
(then Governor of the State of New York) had issued a proclamation 
calling upon the District Attorney and others to enforce the laws against 
lottery and policy gambling. That he, the said Catlin, was anxious to 
enforce the laws in his district, but that upon examining certain indict- 
ments against said lottery and policy gamblers, then in his office as Dis- 
trict Attorney, he found they were not supported by legal evidence. 
The said Isaac S. Catlin did then request deponent to secure the proof 
and evidence against those who were violating the laws against lottery 
and policy gambling in the city of Brooklyn and cause the arrest of per- 
sons so offending ; that he, the said Catlin, would prosecute them ac- 
cording to law. 

Deponent further says that on the 26th day of May, 188 1, he again 
visited Isaac S. Catlin, and laid before him the complaints, duly drawn 
with the exhibits attached thereto, against twenty-six persons charged 
with selling what is commonly called lottery policies. That the said 
Isaac S. Catlin did then and there examine the said complaints and evi- 
dence, and advised the arrest of all the parties. That twenty-one of the 
said parties were arrested, and indicted by the Grand Jury. That after- 
ward, to wit, on or about the dates placed to the left of the names on 
the annexed paper marked Exhibit "A," the following persons were 
arrested, and on the dates placed to the right of their names were 
indicted for violating the laws of the State of New York prohibiting the 
sale of lottery policies. That the following memorandum, also placed 
opposite the names on the said paper, designates the disposition of said 
indictments by the District Attorney. That upon all of the said indict- 
ments the said Isaac S. Catlin as District Attorney did unlawfully omit 
and fail to prosecute. That all of said indictments were supported by 
legal evidence, and as deponent is informed and verily believes, sufficient 
evidence to convict if the persons indicted had been properly prosecuted 
by the said District Attorney at the time. 

Deponent further says that Henry Dela Motta and Abraham Dela 
Motta, while said indictments were pending against them, were again 
arrested in March, 1883, and indicted in June, 1883, for additional viola- 
tion of law, and deponent says that the said Isaac S. Catlin did unlaw- 
fully omit and fail to prosecute the said Abraham Dela Motta and 
Henry Dela Motta, and as deponent is informed and believes, upon the 
last named indictments against the said Dela Motta, that the said Isaac 
S. Catlin as District Attorney did utterly omit and fail to prosecute, and 
that the prisoners were not even arraigned to plead upon the said indict- 
ments, as the indictments now show. 



36 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 





OO" 


.. „ „ .. .. - ooco' ; ; ; ; ; 
--•--•""oooo 


1 loo"'*"''* cj oo"" 

: : 1 - - v - a M 


oJ 




r->~ 

u 




. Rem H «U -f- - 

: u *o u, 


So 


a 


X) 


u 


• :xi •*■ .o 


a 


a 


a 




. s fi 


'•5 

c 




• : o o 

• :Q IsL Q 

• : oj" 


fcuo 


o 


T3 
on 


.Si*a 

- : : 3 s - % a 


1 -*a 7v "a 


8 s s 

i - a 


a 
o 


a- 


: :l*s S «S-|--: 


" o 
o 




a> 


w <n 








• :*r *o u2 


u 


'55 


■3 


CT3 


"O oj ^3 


li 


o 






: : c^ co 


O-; ^ 


75 


c 

oj 




: :c .ST a 
: : S «j li 


OJ * 


5 


a„ 

o" 






3 s ho 

E 














•3 




' ; T3 <u -a 


•O* 2 




c 




: . a >i c 


a 










u 




■*ronNN'<j-M-'>NNroNr')tNiNe> 


: : m h m n n^ n o h 


H C<Ph 




oo 


-co 


CO 








































c 


ocT 


• M 


BO 










CO 
CO 










• 00 CO 




















CI 

a 

o 

•3 

c 


o 

C 

ee 

m'oC 


:o 

•"2 


m 00 
M 








o" 

o 

O 










: c?^ 

• c c 

; C3 03 




















V 

Q 


" ►Too t! o oo °° °° °° °° c 000001 


': :?^i^c? o 

. . °° M M OC 


■> 





^ 


t 


00 

00 P 
M OC 

_oc 








s's 


^SSnSnmnnnmSSc 




00 H • 




fi C 

3 E 


~ccacccccc.c.££*- 


•■•00-JUU3- O- J 

: :-z;2-qoo5 O a 


c/)0 






3 














































en 










a 


























d 








• rt" 




ti 












a 

>> 
o 

0H 

"o 

CJ 

a 


E 

r 

L 


- 
t 

> 
I 

u 

■c 
c 
< 


j 

' a, 

so a 

II 


.1 

I— 

1 


> 

L 

\ 

■s 


i 
c 

I 


> 

c 

1- 
■»« 

-c 


! 

In 

OJ ». 

3 1- 

3i 

flJE 

5 c 


c 
(X 

1 

s 

■J 
T 


8 

1 




i 

c 


> 

L 
a 

1 

5 


o 
** « 

Q; 

rt c 
,d a 

Is 
3B 


ui2 

'JST37 


c 

1 
- 
c 


_, a 
C a 

I'i 

SI 

;3 


I"' 


c 

1 

) z 

'> 
li 



V 

■g 

Si 

o ( 

US 


03 

a. 
!b 

:<5 


a. 
c 
c 
a 
U 
s. 
X 

X 

■- 


- 

L 

: 


c 
c 

c 

1 

» 

)0 


a 

1 

1 
>- 

1 


i 


co~ 




00 _ ^ _ . 










00* ^ ^ * 




O </) 


^^ 








as 




; : s s i i : j'i 2 2 oj ' 


3 " <»i N iri rC - 


lO 


Q 




!:«:»::::::: 


»-•«-«-- b».^'^ 


i i i oj 




§ 




" o" q"-' 'g" " 


Q 



CHARGES AGAINST ISAAC S. CATLIN. . 37 

Deponent further says that he is informed, and believes, that in each 
of the aforesaid cases there was full and ample evidence to convict the 
aforesaid named persons as common gamblers and for violating the laws 
of the State of New York, prohibiting the sale of what are commonly 
called lottery policies. That if the said Isaac S. Catlin had lawfully 
prosecuted the said persons so arrested and indicted for said offence as 
aforesaid, there was ample evidence to have convicted in each case, and 
especially in the cases against Abraham Dela Motta and Henry Dela 
Motta. 

Deponent further says, that he is informed and verily believes that 
indictments against all of the aforesaid named persons were dismissed 
on the days and dates as follows : 

December 22, indictments were dismissed charging the following per- 
sons with selling lottery policies, to wit : Theodore Fuller, alias Carl 
Fuller? 3 indictments ; John L. Walker, 2 indictments ; John Funk, 1 
indictment ; Michael Carney, 2 indictments ; John Mangin, 1 indictment. 

December 26, three indictments dismissed against Thomas Laird. 

December 29, two indictments against Christopher Bantle, also two 
indictments against Peter Vanderhorf, and one indictment against Wal- 
ter Foster and Andrew J. Phillips ; one indictment against William 
Stone ; two indictments against James G. Roe ; two indictments against 
Elizabeth Kepple ; three indictments against William Rose ; three indict- 
ments against John McEvoy and Edward McEvoy each ; on December 
31, 1883, four indictments against Simeon Cryer ; two indictments 
against Henry Dela Motta, and two againt Abraham Dela Motta; three 
indictments against Andrew McClellan ; two indictments against John 
Shubert; two indictments against Charles Stange ; five indictments 
against Charles W. Smith ; two indictments against William Steiner, 
and one indictment against John Shelter. 

Deponent further says, that the said Isaac S. Catlin did utterly omit 
and fail to prosecute Walter Foster and Andrew J. Phillips, charged 
with selling lottery policies ; that the evidence in these cases consists of 
the numbers, or what is commonly called lottery policy, sold by the said 
Foster and Phillips, and, further, the testimony of a witness who saw 
them sell the said lottery policy and record the same on a manifold 
book, and besides this, the manifold-books upon which the plays were 
recorded were found in the possession of each of the defendants, Foster 
and Phillips. 

Deponent further says, that the said Phillips was at the time of selling 
the said lottery policy, as deponent is informed and verily believes, a 
peace officer, or special policeman for the County of Kings. Deponent 
was present when the said Phillips was arrested and saw the said mani- 



38 



GA M-BL ING OUTRA GES. 



fold-book with said lottery policy recorded on the same, and also a spe- 
cial policeman's badge, both seized in the possession of said Phillips. 

Deponent further says, that he is informed and believes that the 
records of the court will show, prior to 1881, that Andrew McClel- 
lan was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a prior offence 
of selling what are commonly called lottery policies. That that fact was 
known to the said Isaac S. Catlin, and, further, that the said An- 
drew McClellan did conduct an extensive business, in the city of Brook- 
lyn, in lottery policies after being released from the term of imprison- 
ment as aforesaid. And the evidence against the said McClellan will 
be the testimony of an eye-witness, who saw him write and sell the said 
lottery policy, upon which he was arrested, charged with selling, in 18S1 ; 
and deponent is informed and verily believes that there is full and am- 
ple evidence to coiwict the said Andrew McClellan if the case had been 
properly tried. 

Deponent further says, that notwithstanding the large number of ar- 
rests made in 1881, none of the said cases were prosecuted to con- 
viction by the said Isaac S. Catlin until Feb., 1882 ;. that on or about the 
5th day of Feb., 1882, William Stone was tried and convicted in the Ses-' 
sions Court, and after conviction was allowed to go on bail ; that sentence 
was not moved for, in said case, by the District Attorney until Decem- 
ber, 1882. 

That on or about the 7th day of June, 1882, John Mangin, John L. 
Walker and Charles W. Smith were all convicted in the City Court, but 
neither of them have been sentenced as yet. That on or about the 12th 
day of June Carl Fuller was convicted in the City Court of Brooklyn, 
and that all of these men after conviction were allowed to go on bail, 
and that the said District Attorney has utterly omitted and failed to 
bring the said cases before the court for sentence. And further, that, 
notwithstanding the fact that Carl Fuller had been frequently arrested 
for selling lottery policies, and that both prior to the date of his con- 
viction and afterwards he had continued the business and been arrested 
for the same. And further, that on the 5th day of December, 1883, the 
said Fuller was arrested and held for examination charged with further 
selling lottery policies. That on the 31st day of December, 18S3, not- 
withstanding these facts, all of the cases which the said Isaac S. Catlin 
had omitted and failed to prosecute were dismissed on motion of the 
District Attorney, and the said Isaac S. Catlin did utterly and unlawfully 
omit to prosecute the said Fuller. 

Wherefore deponent prays, that the Grand Jury in and for the County 
of Kings be directed by the Court to inquire into the facts, and if the 
said Isaac S. Catlin omitted to prosecute any or all of the above defend- 



LETTER TO JAMES W. R IDG WAY. o g 

ants, and if he, the said Catlin, failed to discharge the duty imposed upon 
him by Section 349 of the Penal Code, and by his oath of office as Dis- 
trict Attorney for the County of Kings, that he may be apprehended and 
dealt with according to law. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ) 

day of February, 1884. \ Anthony Comstock. 

DID MR. RIDGWAY HAVE " REASON TO BELIEVE " ? 

Besides the above, a letter was sent detailing some of the 
then pending cases, giving names of criminals and the 
witnesses against them. 

LETTER TO MR. RIDGWAY, MARCH 10, 1884. 

New York, March 10, 1884. 
Hon. James W. Ridgway, 

District Attorney, County of Kings, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Dear Sir: — 

I would respectfully call your attention to the following persons who 
were arrested and indicted for selling policy and lottery tickets in 
the City of Brooklyn, and who were not prosecuted by the former Dis- 
trict Attorney, but indictments against whom were dismissed on the last 
day of the term. These cases, in each instance the evidence is positive 
of their guilt, as I believe, and I have a full knowledge of the facts, to 
wit : . 

The People vs. Maurice Foster, and Andrew D. Phillips. Witnesses, 
R. A. Verplank and Anthony Comstock. 

The evidence consists of the policies sold to Verplank by the defend- 
ants, and the manifold-book containing the records of the plays which 
were seized by myself at the time of the arrest. The date of the offence 
was June 2, 1883, and June 22, 1883. The papers are filed in your office 
in each case. 

Elizabeth Kepple, George E. Oram and Detective Druhan, of the 
Eighth Precinct, witnesses. 

Abraham Del\ Motta. George E. Oram. 

Henry Dela. Motta. Witness. 

In these last two cases there is an indictment now pending, upon which 
I believe neither of the defendants has ever been called upon to plead. 
They are old offenders, and I appeal to you to have them brought up 
and prosecuted forthwith. 



4 o GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

The People vs. Andrew McClellan. George E. Oram, witness. 

This man is an old offender, as you perhaps know from general rumor, 
and I appeal to you that he may not go unwhipped of justice. He was 
convicted before General Catlin's day and has escaped conviction now 
simply because the District Attorney failed to do his duty. We have 
the papers which McClellan wrote himself. 

The People vs. Charles Stange and William Steiner. George E. 
Oram, witness. 

The People vs. James G. Roe. George E. Oram, witness. 

The People vs. Simeon Cryer. George E. Oram, witness. 

The People vs. Thomas Ricker. George E. Oram, witness. 

The People vs. Peter Vanderhorf and Catherine Vanderhorf. George 
E. Oram and Detective Druhan, witnesses. 

In each of the above cases there is full and ample evidence to estab- 
lish the guilt, and the only reason that these parties have not been con- 
victed, so far as I am able to judge, is the fact that Isaac S. Catlin, as 
District Attorney, failed to discharge his duty as District Attorney and 
violated the Penal Code by such neglect. 

In each of these cases I think there is. full and ample evidence to con- 
vict, and in some of them the parties have been arrested more than once, 
and I believe are still carrying on the business. You will find the ex 
hibits in each of these cases attached to the complaints and papers in 
the office. 

I would respectfully ask that, at as early a date as is convenient with 
the other duties of your office, these papers may be examined and 
the matter taken before the Grand Jury and these parties reindicted and 
prosecuted. Should the original papers be destroyed, I can furnish an 
exact copy of the same in each case, as I made a copy personally and 
kept the same when the original complaints were made out. 

Very truly yours, 

Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

His attention was also called especially to the untried in- 
dictments against the pool gamblers and policemen who had 
been arrested in September, 1883, on the complaints of the 
agents of this Society. Their names are as follows : 

POLICEMEN. 

John Y. McKane, Chief of Police. 
John Finnigan, Policeman. 



CONEY ISLAND POLICEMEN AND GAMBLERS. ^\ 

John Dunply, Policeman. 
Arnold Gruber, do. 

Garretson Morris, do. 

Edward Fagan, do. 

Richard Fortune, do. 

Wm. Boyle, do. 

POOL GAMBLERS. 

Charles Smith. 

Michael J. Kelly, alias Tully. 

James E. Brown. 

Thomas Wilson. 
. Albert Burtis. 

Louis Leader. 

James Martin. 
Jane A. Madigan and James F. Quigley, the latter also 
one of McKane's subordinate policemen, were also indicted 
and arrested for running a faro gambling game. 

NOT ONE EVER TRIED. 

It will be of more than passing importance to note the 
fact that not one of these indictments has been tried down to 
the present time. 

NO WITNESSES EVER CALLED. 

Notwithstanding all of the statements made by Mr. 
Ridgway to the contrary, one fact remains which is worthy 
of especial moment. 

Not a witness has been called into court or before any 
Grand Jury to testify in a single one of the cases of com- 
mon gamblers named in the foregoing affidavit, or letter of 
March 10, 1884; nor against Isaac S. Catlin, for violating 
Section 349, Penal Code ; nor against the pool gamblers or 
John Y. McKane or any of his eight subordinates who were 
indicted September, 1883; nor against either of the Dela 
Mottas. The first indictments against the Dela Mottas 



. 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

were dismissed while those for second offences were pending. 
Upon the latter indictments neither defendant has yet been 
arraigned to plead. 

We furnished Mr. Ridgway the names of the offenders, 
the crime of which they had been guilty, and the names of 
the witnesses to prove those crimes. 

He says the Grand Jury passed upon the cases and re- 
fused to indict. 

How could the Grand Jury pass upon them without any 
evidence ? It was Mr. Ridgway's duty to have subpoenaed 
the witnesses before the Grand Jury. This he had the pow- 
er to do at any time they were in session. This he never 
has done, nor has a witness thus far been called into court 
by him on one of the foregoing cases. 

This may be said to be ancient history. It might well be 
so considered, did not the fact that it was brought into the 
administration of Mr. Ridgway revive it, and place the re- 
sponsibility anew upon the present occupant of the office 
of District Attorney of Kings County. 

Just here it will be interesting to note the testimony of five 
different persons concerning the dismissal of these indict- 
ments. 

It will lend interest to the reader to remember that all 
of these gentlemen were under oath. 

At a session of the Bacon Legislative Investigating Com- 
mittee Mr. Ridgway first gave his version concerning these 
cases. 

On page 684, Printed Report, appears the following : 

Q. Mr. Ridgway, did you ever investigate the circumstances under 
which that large number of indictments were nolle prossed in the month 
of December, 1883? 

A. Yes, sir ; I was about to investigate the matter. Soon after my at- 
tention was called to it, I went to General Catlin and asked him about 
it. He said they had been dismissed on motion before the Court. He 
informed me that the parties had gone out of business and were no 
longer breaking the law. He dismissed them. 



CONFLICTING STATEMENTS. 43 

Q. When did this conversation take place? 

A. It was some time afterward, when my attention was called to it. 

Foster L. Backus, an assistant of Mr. Catlin, being sworn 
before the Investigating Committee, testifies to the evidence 
to support these indictments as follows : 

" I told General Catlin in Mr. Bacon's (Catlin's chief clerk) presence 
that every case that I had tried where Mr. Comstock furnished the evi- 
dence, or where his men were the witnesses, we had obtained a convic- 
tion, and that the evidence was substantially the same in the other 
cases." * * * 

John Oakey, another of Mr. Catlin's assistants (p. 935), 
swears as follows : 

" I was in the Court of Sessions trying cases, and Mr. Bacon came in 
with this large bundle of indictments, a very great many of them ; I 
made the motion to Judge Moore to nolle these indictments. I took up 
perhaps a half dozen and told him the reason why : that the complaining 
witnesses were dead ; those that were nolled on account of the witnesses 
not being able to be found ; several cases were nolled on account of 
the death of the defendant. Having read a number of them, I said to 
Judge Moore that was the general nature of these indictments and 
moved to nolle them, and they were handed to Mr. York and that was 
all that was ever done about it; and after that there came into the 
office one or two scattering indictments, some that were overlooked or 
something of that kind, and they found out the reason why, and they 
were nolled ; a very few, not over three or four, perhaps." 

Mr. Catlin, in explaining how these indictments came to 
be dismissed, testified under oath before the Investigating 
Committee as follows : 

Q. Have you ever heard any satisfactory explanation of that oc- 



currence 



A. No, sir; I have heard speculation on the subject. 

Q. From whom ? 

A. From Colonel Oakey and Mr. Backus, and those that I have made 
myself: that there were large piles of indictments, and that these indict- 
ments might, by mistake, have gotten into those piles in the hurry to 
transfer the books, papers, and documents over to Mr. Ridgway ; in 
other words, they were together ; that is, in the immediate vicinity of 



44 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

each other, and they might have been, by mistake, placed into the piles 
that were dismissed. I can only make that explanation, or else charge 
absolute malefeasance upon some one, and which one I do not know. 

Bernard J. York, clerk of the Court of Sessions, being 
sworn, says, in reference to these same cases : 

" Nine were dismissed on December 22, five December 26, eigh- 
teen December 29, and twenty-five December 31." 

He then goes on and states as to the total number of in- 
dictments dismissed on certain dates as follows : 

" On the 26th day of December the number dismissed was nine. That 
includes five that I testified to before as gambling indictments, making 
four other than those of gambling. 

" December 29, twenty-two dismissed, in all, including eighteen gam- 
bling indictments, making four that were not gambling. 

"December 31, thirty-seven indictments dismissed, including twenty- 
five designated heretofore as gambling." 

This record, produced from the minutes of the Court, 
plays sad havoc with the sworn statements of Messrs. Oak- 
ey and Catlin. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Catlin there was not a very large 
amount of indictments dismissed on either the 26th, 29th or 
the 31st days of December, when the major portion of these 
fifty-seven indictments were dismissed, if Mr. York's min- 
utes are correct. I leave the reader to surmise, how, on 
the 26th of December, the five gambling indictments that 
were dismissed could have mysteriously got mixed up with 
"the large pile " of four others so as to deceive the one who 
had charge of the dismissal of these indictments ; or how, 
on the 29th of December, the eighteen gambling indictments 
could have got mixed up with " the large pile " of four other 
indictments dismissed on that day ; or how the twenty-five 
gambling indictments on December 31st could have got 
mixed up with " the large pile " of twelve other indictments 
dismissed upon that day. 



CORRECT THEORY. .* 

There is, however, another theory, that can be very briefly 
stated and to my mind is a better explanation of this mat- 
ter than any that has been given. 

December 20, Mr. Backus was trying cases in the Ses- 
sions Court in Brooklyn. He sent a messenger over to mv 
office, summoning the writer to appear at once in his court, 
without specifying any cases that were up for trial. As the 
writer was engaged in Court (having come from the General 
Sessions Court in New York City, where a case had 
been disposed of, and was on his way to the United 
States Court, where a case was pending before United 
States Commissioner Shields) when he received the message, 
the following letter was sent to Mr. Backus, which will fully 
explain the writer's position and the reason why he did not 
respond to the invitation of Mr. Backus's messenger. 

December, 20, 1883. 

Mr. Backus, 

Assistant District Attorney, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Dear Sir : — 

Upon my return, a few moments ago, to this office I was informed by 
my assistant that a messenger was here asking me to come to Brooklyn 
at once, that you desired to see me. 

I should be only too glad to comply with your request, only that I am 
just going to the United States Court in a case there before one of the 
Commissioners, which may occupy the balance of the afternoon. I have 
matters in the State Court which I must go and attend to, and other 
duties which have piled up on account of my being two days in the Oyer 
and Terminer Court this week and yesterday absent in Goshen trying a 
case there. 

In order that you may see exactly how pressed I am for this week, 
and indeed for the balance of the year, I beg just to call your attention 
to my situation. 

On the 21st, to-morrow, I have three cases for trial in Special Sessions 
Court, which have been adjourned over from this week in order to en- 
able me to be present in the Oyer and Terminer Court. 

Saturday I have three more cases in the Tombs Police Court at 
10:30 A.M. 



4 6 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



Monday we have three cases in Brooklyn at 1:30 p.m., set per- 
emptorily for examination. 
Tuesday is Christmas. 

Wednesday we have two cases set for trial in Special Sessions Court, 
for which we are summoned. 

Then there are cases to come up on the other days, so that for the 
balance of the year we have cases in the courts ; and if you can tell me, 
my good friend, how I can possibly be in two places at one time, 1 shall 
be only too glad to respond. 

Now will it not do for me to see you on Monday, when we come over 
to Brooklyn in the Fuller case ? 

If I can get through this afternoon so as to get time to come over 
and see you, I will endeavor to do so. You can send word by the mes- 
senger if you desire to have me call this afternoon. 

Very truly yours, 
(signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary, 

PerD. 

No message came, and he did not see me the following 
Monday, although the case of the notorious Carl Fuller was 
before Justice Walsh, in Brooklyn, for examination on his 
sixth offence and arrest. 

This letter was mailed on the 20th and doubtless received 
on the 2 1 st. 

Now, let this fact be noted : that throughout all these years 
these gamblers had been protected from prosecution, despite 
our earnest protests and appeals that they be brought to 
justice ; and even the four who had been convicted in June, 
1882, had never been sentenced. Fuller was one of these 
four. 

The next day, after the District Attorney's office became 
informed of the fact that we could riot be there, they began 
to dismiss the fifty-seven indictments that had not been pros- 
ecuted, and kept up the dismissal of those indictments until 
the 31st, when they dismissed the last twenty-five. The 
record of the Court, sworn to by Mr. York, confirms this 
statement. 

If the two Dela Mottas were not protected absolutely 



ANDY McCLELLAN SHIELDED. aj 

why were the first two indictments dismissed for the first 
offence and they never called upon to plead to the second 
indictment at all during Mr. Catlin's administration ? 

Andy McClellan was a boss gambler who had been pre- 
viously convicted. Mr. Catlin himself swears he knew 
McClellan had been convicted for policy gambling before he 
(Catlin) went into office. General Catlin in May, 1881, 
was especially solicitous that I should get the evidence 
against him, in order that he might prosecute him. Yet, 
after securing the evidence against him and his right bower, 
Charles W. Smith, the most that we could accomplish from 
May, 1881, throughout Mr. Catlin's administration, was to se- 
cure the conviction of Smith in the City Court, in June, 1882, on 
one indictment, while three other indictments against him, 
and all of the indictments against Andy McClellan, were 
dismissed in December, 1883, and that, too, in face of the 
fact that this business continued right on in the city of 
Brooklyn. 

Charles W. Smith, McClellan's right-hand man, was never 
sentenced during Catlin's administration. What more could 
the administration of the District Attorney's office do for 
Andy McClellan and Charles W. Smith, and the other gam- 
blers who turned their policy books into Andy McClellan's 
headquarters, than they did during the years 1881, 1882, and 
1883 by protecting them from prosecution on the indictments 
found against them through the efforts of the Society for the 
Suppression of Vice, and then during the last ten days of 
that administration dismiss all of these indictments against 
these common gamblers ? and that, too, notwithstanding that 
their crime was a felony, and the evidence of their guilt, as 
Mr. Backus testified, was absolute. 

Does the testimony of the gentleman aforesaid help Mr. 
Ridgway's cause in the matter of his failure to prosecute 
these common gamblers ? 

Were not these common gamblers thoroughly and complete- 



4 8 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



ly protected by the Catlin administration, whether General 
Catlin intended it or not ? What of the urgent appeals made 
by our Society for the vigorous prosecution of these men 
which Mr. Catlin and his assistants disregarded ? 

DID MR. RIDGWAY KNOW ? 

Knowledge is an element of guilt. 

As has been seen, Section 349 of the Penal Code makes 
it the duty of District Attorneys, Sheriffs, etc., " to inform 
against and prosecute all persons whom they have reason to 
believe offenders against the provisions " of Chapter IX. of 
the Penal Code, which includes gambling of all descriptions. 

The testimony of an eye-witness is always valuable ; when 
supported by documentary evidence it is still more so. Let 
us, therefore, call, as the first witness to prove that the present 
District Attorney had " cause to believe " that the laws were 
being violated, Mr. James W. Ridgway and his own docu- 
ments. 

I present first a letter written by Mr. Ridgway, printed in 
the Brooklyn Union, April 22, 1884, to John Y. McKane, 
Chief of Police. 

This letter was written at a time when there was no horse 
racing and consequently no pool-selling on either course at 
Coney Island. It was doubtless inspired by the fact that 
the Roosevelt Legislative Investigating Committee, then in 
session, were making it exceedingly lively for gamblers in 
New York County. This letter, as soon as written, was given 
to the press, as it was published the same afternoon, as 
follows : 

Office of the District Attorney, 
Brooklyn, April 22, 1884. 

John Y. McKane, Esq., 

Chief of Folice, Town of Gravesend. 
Dear Sir : — I desire to call your attention to the fact that it is a mat- 
ter of public notoriety that gambling is openly carried on at various 



PROOF OF RIDGVVA Y 'S KNOWLEDGE. 49 

places at Coney Island, in the township over which you hold police 
supervision. 

It is hardly necessary for me to call your attention to the fact that 
gambling is prohibited by the laws of our State, and to remind you of 
the obligation you owe to the people, by virtue of your office, to enforce 
the laws. The particular place alluded to is one resorted to by thousands 
of the people of our city, to whom such exhibition is objectionable. 

The season is now about opening, and active measures should be at 
once taken to make Coney Island free from all such practices as tend to 
make it repulsive to decent people. 

Very respectfully yours, 

James W. Ridgway, 
District Attorney. 

In connection with this letter appeared in the same paper 
an interview with Mr. Ridgway, which has a very significant 
bearing upon his knowledge and duty. He says : 

" 1 would like to add in this connection that there was a bill before 
the Legislature to permit pool-selling on the race tracks, and the law- 
makers of this State do not seem to have found anything to justify them 
in passing such a law. They have therefore thrown the whole 

RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND 
IF HE DOES NOT DO HIS DUTY HE SHOULD BE REMOVED from office. If 

the people admit that pool-selling is a harmless amusement, their rep- 
resentatives in the Legislature should legalize it. 

" So long as the law against pool-selling remains upon the statute 
books, and I am in office, I will do what I can to have it enforced." 

Has he done all he could have done ? In the light of the 
record of these gambling cases, with the condensed rays of 
the historic reflector turned back upon these fair-sounding 
words, I ask the candid reader, after he shall have read the 
facts, to say whether or no these words were not as hollow as 
sounding brass, and if the manifest intent was not to bring 
the gamblers to terms, not to justice ? 

May 27 there were published in most of the New York 
morning papers interviews purporting to come from Mr. 
Ridgway, all of the same purport. The New York Sun, May 
27, 1884, says : 
4 



c GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

" District Attorney Ridgway of Kings County said yesterday in refer- 
ence to pool- selling on Coney Island : 'lam going to institute criminal 
proceedings at once against every man engaged in pool-selling, and if I 
don't break it up it will be because the machinery of the law is not 
strong enough to do it. I notified the Brighton Beach track people that # 
they must not sell pools nor allow other gambling. I had men there to 
watch them on Saturday. I am aware they did not heed my warning, and 
I shall take the case of every man interested in gambling of any kind 
before the Grand Jury.'" 

June 3, 1884, the week following Mr. Ridgway's proclama- 
tion, Judge Moore, in charging the Grand Jury of Kings 
County Court of Sessions, is reported in various papers as 
saying, concerning pool-selling at Coney Island : 

" The violation of law," he said, " in the town of Gravesend was per- 
sistent, flagrant, and open. The law made pool-selling a crime, and it 
was the duty of the District Attorney to cause the arrest of persons 
engaged in it." 

In face of Mr. Ridgway's proclamation and Judge Moore's 
charge to the Grand Jury, not a single one of the Brighton 
Beach gamblers, whom Mr. Ridgway had " men to watch," 
and of whom he said, " I am aware they did not heed my 
warning," were indicted ; and we challenge him to show by 
the records of that Grand Jury a single name of any gambler 
that he ever brought before that Gra?id Jury. 

Early in June a Gravesend official came to our office and 
politely informed me that it was worth $5000 to me if I 
would not interfere with the Coney Island Jockey Club 
gamblers. Encouraged by the words of Judge Moore and 
Mr. Ridgway, we thought that we would now have hearty 
co-operation, and in order to resent the insult of a bribe and 
to assist what we believed was an earnest determination to 
enforce the law on their part, we sent men down to the Coney 
Island Jockey Club race course, June 16, 1884, and secured 
the evidence against a number of gamblers who were then 
and there openly violating the law. We did not send men 



SCA NDA LOUS R UMORS. , i 

to Brighton Beach, as Mr. Ridgway had announced to the 
gamblers as well as to the public that he "had men 
watching them." 

We did not intend or desire to interfere with Mr. Ridg- 
way's plans. Affidavits were prepared against the gamblers 
by our men, and on the following day (June 17) were taken 
to the District Attorney's office. We found Mr. Ridgway 
absent from the city, and Mr. Shorter, first assistant District 
Attorney, in charge of the office. The facts were presented 
to Mr. Shorter, and he was asked to go before one of the 
County or Supreme Court Judges, secure warrants and search 
warrants, and have these men arrested and their unlawful 
paraphernalia seized. Mr. Shorter was informed that the laws 
were being openly violated by professional gamblers. He 
was further informed of the rumors that were then in vogue 
wherein it was charged that the gamblers had made a con- 
tract and that an agreement had been made on the part of 
the District Attorney that they should not be interfered with. 

I desire to emphasize, just here, that we did not believe 
these rumors at that time. We laid them before the prose- 
cuting attorney and his assistants as reasons why vigorous 
action should be taken at once ; for not only were the laws 
being violated, but the character and standing of officials 
were scandalized by these rumors. It was charged at the 
time that the gamblers had " fixed every one ; even Comstock 
had been fixed and would do nothing:." 

It is a rule of our office, whenever we hear of any gam- 
blers or other criminals claiming that they have "fixed " our 
office, or that they have made any agreement or contract by 
which they can continue to violate the law, to immediately 
secure the evidence against, and forthwith arrest and bring 
them into court, put our agents upon the witness-stand 
where the defendants or their counsel have the fullest latitude 
for cross-examination, and then challenge them to prove 



52 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



their libel against us under these, to them, most favorable 
circumstances. 

Being obliged to wait until the 23d, when we were advised 
Mr. Ridgway would return, June 21 we again sent our men 
down to this same place, who secured additional evidence 
against the same men whom they had found violating the law 
on the 1 6th, and also against others, making twenty-two gam- 
blers altogether against whom we had secured positive evi- 
dence. Affidavits, warrants, and search warrants were drawn, 
and these papers were taken June 23, 1884, personally to Mr. 
Ridgway by Mr. W. C. Beecher, counsel for this Society, and 
the writer. 



WHA T MR. KIDG WA Y SAID AND DID. c ? 



CHAPTER V. 

WHAT MR. RIDGWAY SAID AND DID. 

Monday, June 23, 1884, Mr. W. C. Beecher and myself 
called upon Mr. Ridgway, directed his attention to the 
flagrant and open violations of law at Sheepshead Bay race 
course, and informed him that we had the evidence against 
twenty-two different gamblers, presented complaints drawn in 
affidavit form against these parties, and asked for warrants 
and search warrants to arrest the gamblers and seize their 
unlawful paraphernalia. Mr. Ridgway advised against 
warrants before a magistrate, but said he would personally 
take the cases before the Grand Jury on the 25th of June. 
He was then informed that it was rumored and charged that 
the gamblers were boasting that nothing would be done to 
them ; that it was claimed that James E. Kelly had paid or 
agreed to pay $50,000 upon an agreement and contract that 
he and his associate gamblers were not to be interfered 
with ; that it was charged by these rumors that J. E. Kelly 
had had a private interview with him, and that the District 
Attorney had agreed that no interference would be permitted 
with those on the Coney Island Jockey Club race course 
throughout the season. 

Mr. Ridgway replied with an oath that he " would like 
very much to fix it definitely upon some man, and he would 
show him," but made no further denial. We told him that 
we had seen his interview in the Union, and were glad to be 
able to furnish him evidence upon which these men could be 
arrested and convicted. We believed him sincere, and went 



t 4 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

away satisfied with his promise to take the matter before 
the Grand Jury in person on the 25th. 

June 25, 1884, at ten o'clock we were in Brooklyn with the 
witnesses in these cases in the waiting-room of the Grand 
Jury. The affidavits were all drawn and exhibits attached 
giving the full facts in writing, in affidavit form, which were 
again that morning submitted to Mr. Ridgvvay. Mr. Ridgway 
then informed us that Mr. Shorter, his first assistant, had 
charge of the Grand Jury, and directed us to go up to the 
Grand Jury rooms, as the matter was to come up that morn- 
ing. Messrs. Britton, Oram, Baldwin, and myself — witnesses 
— reported to Mr. Shorter, showing him the papers and evi- 
dence in the different cases. He saw and talked with the 
witnesses, who were all present. We were kept waiting until 
after one o'clock, when Mr. Shorter informed us that our 
cases would not be taken up that day. We then went clown 
and had another interview with Mr. Ridgway. He was told 
that fresh rumors had reached our office " that gamblers at 
Sheepshead Bay race track were not to be raided or any- 
thing done to them until after the races closed the next 
week." The complaints were then again presented to him. 
These complaints set out in detail the facts against each 
gambler, and also established the fact that eye-witnesses 
had seen the paraphernalia used for registering bets and 
wagers, and that from fifty to one hundred persons were en- 
gaged in violating the law at this course. He was asked 
that, inasmuch as the Grand Jury had not acted, he take the 
matters forthwith before Judge Moore for warrants and 
search warrants. 

We urged that, because of the rumors, it was a case 
where we ought to go before one of the higher judges and 
have warrants and search warrants issued at once and make 
these men feel something of the rigor of the law. Mr. 
Ridgway declined, saying he " thought the best thing to be 
done was to let the Grand Jury act ; that if we went before 



WHAT MR. RIDGWA Y SAID AND DID NOT. 



55 



Judge Moore for a warrant, he would not try the cases or 
permit them to go before his Grand Jury, and that would 
throw them into the Oyer and Terminer Court, which had 
no Grand Jury until next fall." 

We presented that these gamblers were openly violating 
the law at Sheepshead Bay, and that it was important to 
make an example of them ; and that the best way to nail 
the lies against him and other officials was, now that we 
had the evidence against these men, to arrest them and 
seize their unlawful matter. We urged with much ear- 
nestness that, inasmuch as these rumors of contracts were 
made against his office, the way to vindicate himself and nail 
these lies was to raid the men, as we had raided them in 
other places. 

It was conceded that the justices of Gravesend were 
not the proper persons to apply to for warrants in these 
cases, inasmuch as their subordinates were aiding and as- 
sisting gamblers. The justices had it in their power to 
summon these policemen before them as witnesses against 
the gamblers if they had been so disposed, but did not. As 
police commissioners they could have ordered them to sup- 
press gambling, which they did not do. 

At this time we discussed the action of the local magis- 
trates at Gravesend, who being also police commissioners, 
had appointed their subordinates to protect and assist these 
gamblers in violating the law. 

He assured us that the matter would come before the 
Grand Jury the next day, and that he would have the bills 
drawn immediately and filed the next morning, and bench 
warrants and search warrants issued as soon as the bills 
were filed. 

On this date Mr. Ridgway admitted to Mr. Britton that 
he had been to the New York office of the Coney Island 
Jockey Club personally and given them notice that he 



56 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



should proceed against them if they violated the law. He 
also admitted the same thing to the writer. 

Thursday, June 26, at ten o'clock we again presented our- 
selves as witnesses for the Grand Jury. Messrs. Oram, 
Britton, Baldwin, and myself were called and examined in 
one case. After a little, Mr. Shorter came out of the Grand 
Jury room and informed us that we need not wait, as 
there would not be any more of our cases taken up that 
day. A protest was made against delay ; but Mr. Shorter 
said " it made no difference." We then went in search of 
Mr. Ridgway ; he was nowhere to be found. We then 
looked for Judge Pratt, and found that he was in Massachu- 
setts. We then went in search of Judge Brown, but found 
that he was in Newburg, while Judge Bartlett was actually 
holding court and we could not see him. We then went to 
Judge Moore's court, but found that he had adjourned court 
and gone away ; then up to Judge Moore's house, taking the 
witnesses, complaints, and exhibits with us. When we in- 
quired for him and sent in our names, we were informed that 
he was too ill to be seen. Determined not to be thwarted, 
and bound to do all in our power to enforce the laws so" 
brazenly violated, we then went back to the court-house, 
and about two o'clock went up to the ante-room of the 
Grand Jury and found the Grand Jury about to adjourn. 
In the presence of Mr. Oram and others a demand was 
made upon Mr. Shorter, as follows : — " Mr. Shorter, in the 
presence of witnesses I now demand of you that these mat- 
ters be taken before the Grand Jury forthwith before they 
adjourn ; that unless you take the matter up forthwith, I 
will go directly to the Governor of the State." Mr. Shorter 
said he did not propose to take the odium or responsibility, 
that he would present the matter to the Grand Jury. 

As a result, the balance of our twenty-two cases were prompt- 
ly called before the Grand Jury and within an hour indictments 
found. A tender to Mr. Shorter was made of the services, 



INTERVIEW WITH JUDGE MOORE. ty 

without charge, of the stenographer and agents of our Society 
to do the clerical work in the preparation of these indictments, 
so as to have the indictments promptly gotten out. He was 
also told that Mr. Ridgway had promised to have the in- 
dictments prepared immediately, so that they could be pre- 
sented to the Court as soon as the Grand Jury should order 
them. The same offer was made to the chief clerk. They 
informed us that it would not be necessary; that they 
could easily prepare them themselves, and have them ready 
in time the next morning. 

The next morning the Grand Jury came together, but as 
there were no bills of indictments ready for them to sign, 
they were obliged to adjourn until Monday, giving the gam- 
blers Friday and Saturday to violate the law without mo- 
lestation. 

The next day we had an interview with Judge Moore. 
He was informed of these cases, and of the delays, and 
that we had called at his house for the purpose of asking of 
him warrants to raid these gamblers. 

To our great surprise, we were treated in a most abrupt 
manner. It was made to appear that we had done something 
out of the proper and ordinary course of procedure ; and we 
were further informed, in most emphatic terms, that he would 
not issue a warrant. He informed us that he would consider 
nothing unless it came through the District Attorney. We 
respectfully submitted that it was our right, as citizens, un- 
der the Code to apply to any magistrate for assistance in en- 
forcing the law. We were rebuked for our pains. 

That the reader may not think us over-presumptuous, 
and at the same time be advised of the provisions of law, 
and the powers and duties of a magistrate, we present the 
following. We ask careful attention to these provisions of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Is it the duty of a magis- 
trate to prevent crime and enforce the law when the facts 
are brought to his attention ? 



58 



GAMBLING OUTKA GES. 



MAGISTRATE DEFINED. 



The Code of Criminal Procedure defines a magistrate 

as follows : — 

"Section 146. A magistrate is an officer having power to issue a 
warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime." 

The next section designates " who are magistrates " as 
follows : — 

" Section 147. The following persons are magistrates : 

1. The judges, of the Supreme Court; 

2. The judges of any City Court ; 

3. The County judges and special County judges" etc. 

POWER AND DUTY OF MAGISTRATE. 

The next section defines the duty of a magistrate, as fol- 
lows : 

" Section 148. When an information is laid before a magistrate of 
the commission of a crime, he must examine on oath the informant and 
prosecutor, and any other witnesses he may produce, and take their de- 
positions in writing, and cause them to be subscribed by the parties 
making them." 

It will be observed that this section does not say " may," 
but " must examine" 

Equally positive is Section 150, which provides as follows: 

"Section 150. If the magistrate be satisfied therefrom that the 
crime complained of has been committed, and that there is reasonable 
ground to believe that the defendant has committed it, he must issue a 
warrant of arrest." 

The matter of an examination is entirely another thing. 
For if a magistrate from any cause cannot hold an examina- 
tion, the prisoners can be taken before the nearest and most 
accessible magistrate. 

So in like manner in reference to the issuing of a search 
warrant. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides as fol- 



EX-JUSTICE JASPER S. GILBERT. 59 

lows, making it the imperative duty of the magistrate to 
issue a search warrant, to wit : 

" Section 796. If the magistrate be thereupon satisfied of the exist- 
ence of the grounds of the application, or that there is probable cause 
to believe their existence, he must issue a search warrant, signed by him 
with his name of office, to a peace officer in his county, commanding 
him forthwith to search the person or place named for the property 
specified, and bring it before the magistrate." 

We stood upon our rights as citizens, and, after hav- 
ing secured the positive evidence of guilt, simply demanded 
that the criminals be brought to justice. 

A magistrate is simply a servant of the people, sworn to 
discharge certain offices of duty, under the prescribed rules 
of law. No magistrate is so high that a citizen, however 
lowly, may not approach him and ask of him a warrant to 
arrest a criminal ; and we submit that when a citizen does 
that in good faith, he is not to be denounced nor treated 
with contempt. We had every reason to believe that this 
magistrate, because of his earnest utterances from the 
bench, would be interested in enforcing these laws, and 
therefore we thought it not improper to present the facts to 
him and ask for a warrant. 

How easy it is to be misunderstood ! How different was 
our treatment in these cases from that in the cases of the 
gamblers in Long Island City ! When we went to Mr. Jus- 
tice Gilbert, then of the Supreme Court of the State, he not 
only at once received the papers, but with equal alacrity is- 
sued his warrants, and assisted us in every way, so that in 
one afternoon we effectually closed the four notorious gam- 
bling saloons in Long Island City. The Recorder and Judges 
of the General Sessions Court in New York City have fre- 
quently issued their warrants in similar cases, so that we not 
only felt that we had the right to ask for this assistance, but 
we were encouraged to expect it from the earnest words pro- 
ceeding from the Court when he charged the Grand Jury 



6o GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

concerning these very crimes. Was it not our right as a 
citizen to go directly to any magistrate with our complaints? 
Instead of rebuffing and rebuking us, is it not the impera- 
tive duty of any magistrate to at least examine the wit- 
nesses under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Pro- 
cedure ? . " 

If he found the complaint well founded, "he must issue 
his warrant ; " so says the Code. 

We concede that ordinarily a magistrate of a Court of 
Record is not to be troubled with the detail of an arrest or 
preliminary examination. 

There are, however, extraordinary occasions which call for 
heroic treatment. The fact that about 150 gamblers were 
openly defying the law in the face of the public proclama- 
tions of the District Attorney, and the charge of the Court to 
the then existing Grand Jury, seemed important enough to 
justify our course, especially as the local justices were Police 
Commissioners, whose subordinates were aiding these crimi- 
nal offences, and against whom neither the Commissioners 
nor their policemen would move. This Court could direct 
the Sheriff to proceed, and had power to enforce its mandates. 

Under the circumstances, was it not eminently proper 
that an application should be made to this Court ? 

June 27 another interview was had with Mr. Ridgway, 
wherein he was reminded that he had promised that if indict- 
ments were ordered by the Grand Jury, he would have 
them drawn so as to file " the next day after the bills were 
ordered." The matter then had gone over till Monday. He 
was informed that there would be a race the following day, 
and that the law was being and would be again " openly vio- 
lated ; that the races would close on Tuesday following, the 
first day of July ; that while the races continued it would not 
be difficult to capture these men and their paraphernalia. 
After the races closed it would be very difficult to find some 
of the men wanted." While talking, Mr. Britton came in 



GAMBLERS NOTIFIED OF INDICTMENTS. 6j 

and said that he had had an interview with one of the Grand 
Jurors, who informed him that " they had adjourned yester- 
day till this morning in order to give the District Attorney 
an opportunity to prepare and present the bills to them ; 
that when they called for the bills they were informed they 
were not ready." We again appealed for warrants, but ap- 
pealed in vain. 

Saturday, June 28, the gamblers were engaged in openly 
violating the law. A report was brought to our office on that 
day that " the Coney Island gamblers were to be notified to 
appear at Mr. Ridgway's office on Monday morning and give 
bail, so that their business would not be interfered with down 
on the track during the races." 

Monday, June 30, the Grand Jury had these twenty-two 
indictments to examine, sign, and present in Court, besides 
other matters ; and yet the Grand Jury had completed their 
labors, filed their indictments in court, and nine of the 
twenty-two gamblers, who had evidently been notified before- 
hand, had been to the District Attorney's office, given their 
bail, and gone away — all before half-past eleven a. m. 

Of those who were thus notified and voluntarily gave bail 
are the following, to wit : Michael Murray, John T. Mc- 
Dougall, indicted as " Dougal McDougall," James E. Kelly 
Thomas Murray, John S. Stow, Mark Jordan, James Dunn, 
David J. Johnson, Albert H. Cridge. 

UNUSUAL ZEAL. 

In the zeal to oblige the gamblers two men who were W 
indicted, giving the names of John Kelly and Frank Snyder, 
were allowed to give bail upon these indictments, Frank 
Snyder being accepted in the place of Herman Schneider. 
Neither of these two men had been indicted. In the " in- 
decent haste " and zeal to serve the gambling fraternity, no 
opportunity was given the witnesses to identify the men be- 
fore they gave bail. 



5 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



TEST OF MR. RIDGWAY S SINCERITY. 

As testing the sincerity of Mr. Ridgway's public utter- 
ances, made but a few days before, as already quoted, what 
occurred on this date, June 30, 1884 ? MK Ridgway could 
not be found at his office. After a long search we discovered 
him in the Club House in Pierrepont Street. He was asked 
" if bench warrants had been issued for the arrest of the 
other indicted gamblers ? " He replied that " one of his 
officers had them, but that all of these men would come if 
they were notified." He was told : " Mr. Ridgway, these 
men are openly violating the law to-day, and the Code makes 
it the duty of the officers charged with the arrest of any of 
these men to seize the paraphernalia. You have the affida- 
vits which have been prepared, and which are now in your 
office, showing sufficient grounds for search warrants to be 
issued." He informed us that " there would be no search 
warrants issued ; that after an indictment had been found 
search warrants could not be issued." To this we replied : 
" Mr. Ridgway, that is perfectly ridiculous. You are evi- 
dently not acquainted with the Code, for Section 345 
makes it the duty of the officer authorized to arrest any of 
these men to seize this matter, and the fact that the criminal 
has been indicted and still continues to violate the law is a 
reason why he should be arrested and the matters seized, in 
order that the law may be felt by those who are violating it." 
Mr. Britton, my assistant, was present during this conversa- 
tion. 

It was then urged upon Mr. Ridgway as a reason why 
these men should be arrested in due form of law, and their 
gambling paraphernalia seized, as follows : " Mr. Ridgway, 
it is charged that part of the contract is that these men are 
not to be arrested nor interfered with on the race track." 
Mr. Ridgway replied, with an oath, he didn't- care a 



MR. RIDGWAY'S SINCERITY TESTED. 



6 3 



what people said ; that he proposed to send an officer 

down there to notify these men, even if it was necessary to 
send all of the 54 men, or men from the 54 booths, up to his 
office to be identified ; that Kelly had been to him and told 
him that he would send all of the men up. He then said : 
" I understand you have been talking about my office." The 
writer replied in substance and effect as follows* : " The 
most said was that I thought it was very strange that every 
one of the principal gamblers of the Sheepshead Bay race, 
track should be on hand in your office ready to give bail 
before the indictments were filed, and that bail-bonds in all 
these cases could be prepared, signed, and executed before 
11:30 a. m., when the indictments were not filed in court 
until after half-past ten o'clock. Certain it is that your offi- 
cers have not had time to go and look up these gamblers 
and bring them over here after the indictments were filed. 
Some of the men could not be identified unless our men 
identified them. Our men are here now to identify these 
men." A demand was also made that, under the affidavits 
then in his office, he apply for search warrants to seize the 
gamblers' unlawful matter. He said it would not be done. 
That if we would send one 6f our officers down with his men 
to identify the persons who had been indicted, his officer 
would notify them that they had been indicted, and that 
they (the gamblers) would appear the next day and give 
bail. 

In this connection note Section 156 of the Penal Code, 
which makes it a misdemeanor to disclose to an indicted 
person before his arrest the fact that he has been indicted. 

"Sec. 156. — A judge, grand juror, district attorney, clerk, or other 
officer who, except in the due discharge of his official duty, discloses be- 
fore an accused person is in custody the fact of an indictment having 
been ordered against him is guilty of a misdemeanor." 

After we found that Mr. Ridgway was determined to pro- 
tect and shield these men from arrest in face of the rumors 



6 4 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



of a contract made to the effect' that " the gamblers should 
not be arrested nor their paraphernalia or unlawful business 
interfered with," and prostitute the ends of justice in their 
behalf by sending his men to notify them of the action of 
the Grand Jury before they were arrested, an application 
was made at the office of the Brooklyn Union that they should 
send a trusty man with the officer and our agent and make a 
faithful report of what occurred. A gentleman above re- 
proach was sent, and here is his testimony of what oc- 
curred : 

The Brooklyn Union of July i, 1884, says, under the 
title of 

"a public farce." 

" Mr. James E. Kelly, of pool-selling notoriety, stood in his little box 
in the betting amphitheatre at the Coney Island Jockey Club yesterday 
afternoon engaged in his usual lively occupation of calling out the odds 
on the races and raking in the shekels of the over-trustful. He did not 
seem to be in the least disturbed by the fact that he had just been in- 
dicted for violating the law of the State and had that very morning been 
obliged to find bail. Just before the third race was called a sprucely 
dressed young man with an abnormally developed nose touched Mr. 
Kelly on the shoulder and informed him that he was from the District 
Attorney's office, and would like to speak with him privately for a few 
moments, at the same time apologizing to Mr. Kelly for disturbing him 
during business hours. The young man, who was of the District At- 
torney's office, was accompanied by Jere Wernberg, the attorney for 
the pool-sellers, and by Mr. Joseph A. Britton, an agent of the So- 
ciety for the Prevention of Crime. There were twenty-three indictments 
found by the Grand Jury against the Sheepshead Bay pool-sellers." 

What happened at the race track is further disclosed in 
the same article. After stating that all of the principal per- 
sons wanted had come to the District Attorney's office and 
given bail that morning, the article says : 

" Mr. Comstock's agent visited the track yesterday in order to identify 
the remaining twelve ; the District Attorney's representative came to 
serve the papers upon the accused and request them to appear before 



COMFORTING WORDS OF BOSS KELLY. 



65 



Mr. Rielgway to-day. Of course the whole thing was nothing but a 
farce, and was so regarded by everybody concerned. Mr. Kelly went 

around with Mr. Britton and Mr and the following men were 

identified and served with notices to appear : John White, F. T. Brad- 
ley, T. J. Meehan, D. Gleason, F. Rodman, James Fry, William 
McNamara, William Waring, J. Varley and D. Wartzfelder." 

Note the further important testimony of this impartial eye- 
witness, who can be corroborated if necessary. He says in 
the same article : 

"The business of pool-selling was not for a moment interfered with, 
and the pool-sellers who had been indicted laughed and hob-nobbed 
with Mr. Jere Wernberg and the representative of the District Attorney's 
office." 

Mr. Kelly is reported also in the same article, by the same 
witness, as assuring his brother gamblers that there was 
nothing to fear. 

" You know," he said, " half of you are indicted under wrong names, 
and even if there was a case against you, nothing will come of it. The 
Grand Jury will adjourn, the case will be put off till fall, and then they 
will be pigeon-holed or you will be let off with a small fine, and that will 
end the whole matter. At any 7 ate, our business will not be interfered 
with this season." 

Has not this prophecy of Mr. Kelly been fulfilled ? Did 
Mr. Kelly speak with a knowledge of a contract of protec- 
tion being in force ? Certain it is that his very positive 
words would indicate that he felt confident that some power 
was to deliver him from the hands of the law. It will be of 
interest to note how this matter was "pigeon-holed " when we 
come further to consider these cases. 

The same paper contained an interview with Mr. Ridgway 
in which he complacently says : " I have done my best in this 
thing ; I have worked hard and done my duty, and those who 
don't like it can do as they d n please." 

These words going to the public made it appear that he 
was very zealous. 
S 



56 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Up to June 30, 1884, we had not believed the rumors 
that the gamblers were to be " protected " and that we were 
not to be permitted to raid them, as we had successfully 
clone in other cases, especially after bench warrants would 
be issued for their arrest. We repeatedly plead these ru- 
mors of contracts for protection as arguments for prompt 
and vigorous action, not believing them true. The refusal 
to allow the gamblers to be arrested after the Grand Jury 
had indicted them forced us to believe that Mr. Ridgway 
was not acting in good faith ; and it is for the reader to say 
whether any man would voluntarily go out of his way to 
protect gamblers openly violating the law if there was not 
some very strong consideration presented as an inducement 
for thus braving public opinion, defying the obligations of 
office, and violating the Penal Code. 

FARCE NO. II. 

July 8 the parties indicted who had given bail were to 
be arraigned before Judge Moore in the Sessions Court. In 
the cases of Albert H. Cridge, James E. Kelly, Thomas 
Murray, John S. Stow, David J. Johnson, John T. McDou- 
gall, alias Dougal McDougall, James Dunn, Michael Murray, 
Mark Jordan, when called, their counsel demurred to 
their indictments. The other parties who had given bail 
on the 1 st day of July, with the exception of Wartzfelder, 
Rose, and John Kelly, were present in court. The names 
under which they had been indicted, and under which they 
had given bail, were called, and each one of them was per- 
mitted to remain mute in his seat, although Mr. Jenks, the 
assistant District Attorney, was notified that they were pres- 
ent and that the witnesses were there to identify them. Yet 
he neither called the attention of the court to the fact that 
they were present, nor did he insist upon their appearing to 
plead, but allowed them to walk out of court in contempt of the 
proceedings. 



JOHN T. McDOUGALL. fy 

Some of these men were, as they claimed, indicted under 
erroneous names. When the officer at the gambling booths 
informed them of their indictment he informed them also of 
the names under which they had been indicted. 

July i the gamblers thus favored by Mr. Ridgway and his 
officers voluntarily came to the District Attorney's office and 
gave bail. 

Each man gave his right name and the name under which 
he had been indicted. Each bail-bond contained both of 
these names. 

One case will illustrate all. John T. McDougall was one 
of the bosses, and one of the favored nine who had been in 
waiting in the District Attorney's office, June 30, for the 
Grand Jury to present their indictment to the court, in order 
to give bail thereon. This was to prevent annoyance or 'in- 
terference during business hours at the gambling booths. 
McDougall had been known to the witnesses, and indicted, 
by the name of " Dougal McDougall." He was the only 
McDougall doing business at the Sheepshead Bay race track, 
so far as the witnesses knew. A certified copy of his bond, 
now before me, dated June 30, 1884, reads as follows : 

" An indictment having been found on the 30th day of June, 1884, in 
the Court of Sessions of Kings County, charging Dougal McDougall 
whose true name is John McDougall, with the crime of recording bets 
and wagers. 

(Signed) "John T. McDougall." 

The right names, or names they claimed to be their right 
names, of these men were first discovered when Mr, Ridg- 
way's officers went to the gamblers, after indictment, and 
found them openly violating the law, apologizing for inter- 
fering with their unlawful business, notified them of their 
indictments, and informed them of the name under which 
each had been indicted ; when the gamblers, with equal 
courtesy, informed the peace officer, whose duty it was to 



68 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

arrest, but who did not arrest these criminals, what their right 
names were. 

FICTITIOUS NAMES. 

Some one will suppose, perhaps, that because these men 
claimed they were indicted under fictitious or erroneous 
names, this was a fatal defect in the indictment or a proper 
excuse for the District Attorney not moving against them, 
or that we were to blame for not getting their right names. 

It is a very difficult thing to secure the right name of a 
criminal before arrest. It would be apt to arouse suspicion 
and put a criminal upon his guard to attempt to secure his 
true name, especially as so many have numerous names as 
a cover to their criminal doings. 

It is not necessary to have the true name. The im- 
portant thing is to get the right person. 

The Code of Criminal Procedure clearly settles this. 
Section 277 takes away all excuses from the District At- 
torney and remedies all defects arising from " fictitious " or 
" erroneous " names. It says : 

" Section 277. If a defendant is indicted by a fictitious or erroneous 
name, and in any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, 
it may be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the 
fact of his being indicted by the name mentioned in the indictment." 

By their own voluntary act these men had discovered their 
true names to the District Attorney, and then voluntarily 
entered bail accordingly. 

Our indictments were regular, our evidence positive, 
and our witnesses unimpeached, and yet the facts concern- 
ing these cases will savor of some deep-laid plot to thwart 
the ends of justice and screen these guilty gamblers from 
merited punishment. 

Will the District Attorney and his assistant plead that they 
did not know the right names, as a defence for this farce ? If 
so, we produce the bail-bond of these men as the first evi- 



FARCE NO. III. 



69 



dence; and, second, the fact that in open court Mr. Jenks, 
the assistant District) Attorney, was told that " each of the 
defendants was present," that they had been notified be- 
fore giving bail of the names under which they had been in- 
dicted, and had voluntarily given bail under those indictments, 
and that the witnesses were in court ready to identify them. 
The reader will look in vain for an answer to the question, 
" Why were not these men required to plead, under the pro- 
visions of Section 277 of the Code, above cited? " 

FARCE NO. III. 

July 9, 1884, the Sheriff of Kings County visited the 
office of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, 
and with a great show of zeal was very anxious to be in. 
formed where the men could be found for whom he held 
bench warrants, he having fourteen warrants with him for 
these men. He was referred to the bail-bonds and told 
that the men he wanted had appeared, and were then under 
bail, with the exception of two, who had availed themselves 
of the information that they had been indicted and had 
failed to appear. These two have not been arrested down to 
the present time, although one of them was and is within 
the reach cf the District Attorney, if he had chosen to call 
or chooses now to call him into court. One of them, 
Michael J. Kelly, was indicted and arrested September, 
1883, for offences committed at Brighton Beach race track, 
and is under bonds to appear under that indictment. He 
could any day have been called, if the District Attorney had 
chosen, and made to appear in court, or his former bond 
have been forfeited. 

July 1, 1884, Mr. Ridgway was informed by the writer 
that the party indicted as Michael J. Kelly, June 30, 1884, 
was the same man who had been indicted in Septem- 
ber, 1883, and was then under bonds as Michael J. Tully. 



y Q GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

A request was then made of Mr. Ridgway to have the old in- 
dictment called for trial, in order to bring the defendant into 
court, where he could be easily identified by the witnesses 
and apprehended by the Sheriff on the bench warrant. This 
has not been done. 

Later. — November 20, 1884, the following letter was 
written to Mr. Ridgway, and at 3:45 p. m. on that date was 
delivered at his office by Mr. George E. Oram : 

Hon. James W. Ridgway, 

District Attorney, County of Kings, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
************ 
There is another bench warrant (or should be one) which I explained 
to you July I, 1884, for the arrest of Michael J. Kelly, indicted June 
last for violating Section 351 of Chapter IX. of the Penal Code, which 
ought to have been executed a long time ago, but which has not been 
thus far. July 1 I informed you that this man Kelly had been in- 
dicted in Kings County, for a similar offence, in September, 1883; that 
he was then arrested and under bonds in your court for trial ; and that if 
you would call that case up for trial, the said Kelly could then be ar- 
rested on said bench warrant. For reasons best known to yourself, this 
old case has not been called once for trial since you have been in office, 
and the bench warrant has not been executed. He was indicted for 
selling French pools. Will you please have the old case called for 
trial, the present bench warrant executed and the said Kelly held for 
trial on the indictment found in June last ? 

This man Kelly, I am informed, has continued in the business since 
June at Coney Island, violating the same law. I remain, 
Respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 
Secretary and Chief Special Agent. 

Nothing has been done to date. 

This letter was called forth by Mr. Ridgway's conduct in 
court a day or two previous thereto. 

A bench warrant had previously been placed in our hands 
for execution against a notorious gambler who had formerly 
been engaged plying his traffic at Coney Island. We found 



MR. R IDG IV A Y LOSES A POINT. 71 

that this party had gone to his home in Chicago, III, and we 
held the warrant, pending his return. 

Mr. Ridgway called Mr. Britton, one of our witnesses, 
before the bar of the court and in a loud and insulting tone 
of voice demanded the return of the warrant. Mr. Britton, 
taken by surprise, as no intimation had ever been given that 
the warrant was wanted, stood confused, not knowing at first 
what to say. Mr. Ridgway then, in an excited manner, ap- 
pealed to the Court for an order to oblige Mr. Britton to turn 
over the warrant. The Court refused to so order, and for once 
Mr. Ridgway was left unsupported. This letter returned the 
warrant called for by him, and then called attention to a 
certain other bench warrant issued by Ridgway to the 
Sheriff which had not been served upon Michael J. Kelly, 
one of the two indicted gamblers who had not responded to 
the polite attention shown the fraternity by the District At- 
torney June 30, 1884. 

This circumstance simply shows the difference between the 
treatment which honest men and gamblers received at Mr 
Ridgway's hands. Our crime was that we demanded the 
proper enforcement of the law against gamblers. 



72 GAME LJ AG OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER VI. 

FARCE NO. IV. 

An Innocent Man Arrested and Held to Bail. 

July ii, 1884, or three days after John T. McDougall 
had demurred * as aforesaid, a most remarkable transaction 



* Just here a word of explanation is necessary. The writer, July 8, 
1884, sat in court with pencil and paper, and, as each one of the de- 
fendants was called, recorded the action taken in each case, then 
afterwards went to the Clerk of the Court and, in order to be cor- 
rect, received from the Clerk a memorandum of the action taken in each 
case, showing that the demurrer was entered by counsel to this indict- 
ment, July 8, 1884. 

As confirmatory of what I state I quote from the Brooklyn Eagle of 
July 8, 1884, as follows : — 

" Mr. Wernberg then demurred to the following names : John Kelly, Thomas 
Murray, David Johnson, James Dunn, DougalMcDougall, Alfred Cridge, Michael 
Murray, John Stow, and James E. Kelly. " 

The Brooklyn Union of the same date says on this point : 

" The names were called and demurrers entered in the case of Alfred Cridge, 
James E.Kelly, Thomas Murray, John S. Stow, David Johnson, Dougal McDougall, 
John Kelly, James Dunn, and Michael Murray," 

and then presents a list of names against whom bench warrants were 
issued. 

These names were the names given in the indictments, and were the 
titles of the cases. 

A few days ago (Feb., 1887), on receiving a certified copy of the record 
of the Court, we found that that shows that McDougall's demur was en- 
tered as having been made July 15, 1884. July 15, 1884, these cases 
were to have come up, on argument on the demurrers. We were in 
court when court opened, and were informed that all the cases had 



DOUGAL McDOUGALL HELD. 



n 



occurred in Judge Moore's chambers, in the rear of the Ses- 
sions Court Clerk's office. 

The sheriff arraigned two men before Judge Moore whom 
he had arrested upon two of the fourteen bench warrants. 
One of these gave the name of Martin Jordan. He had 
previously, June 30, 1884, voluntarily appeared in Mr. 
Ridgway's office and given bail. He had been indicted as 
Mark Jordan, and gave bail accordingly on said indictment, 
both names being set out in the bail-bond. They were 
about to require another bond, when their attention was 
called to the fact that Jordan had already given bail, as 
aforesaid, and he was allowed to go. 

Not so the other man. Dougal McDougall was innocent. 
And yet, notwithstanding that he was innocent, and that 
John T. McDougall, the real culprit, had voluntarily appeared 
and given bail June 30, 1884, and that the bail-bond 
had been sent for and then and there examined by Judge 
Moore and Mr. Jenks (said bail-bond reading as follows, 
to wit : — " An indictment having been found on the 30th day 
of June, in the Court of Sessions of Kings County, charging 
Dougal McDougall, whose true name is John McDougall, with 
the crime of recording bets and wagers," and signed "John 
T. McDougall " [John T. gave his residence in this bond 
as Hoboken, N. J.]) ; notwithstanding that the writer, who 
was present, with Mr. George E. Oram, one of the principal 
witnesses, publicly informed Judge Moore and Mr. Jenks 
that the man who had given bail June 30 was the right man ; 
that the one then and there present calling himself Dougal 



been adjourned. The writer waited awhile, then returned to New York 
leaving two witnesses to watch if any of our cases came up. They 
reported that none were called. 

Query : Why was not the demur entered on the minutes of the court 
on the 8th of July, 1884? How did it come to be entered July 15? 
Was it an oversight ? 



74 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

McDougall, whose residence was given as 275 Hudson Ave., 
New York, was not the man ; that he was innocent, and 
"not the one the witnesses had testified against before the 
Grand Jury, not the man inoicted, and that one of the wit- 
nesses, Mr. George E. Oram, then present, would so swear"; 
notwithstanding the further fact that but three days before 
the said John T. McDougall had before Judge Moore, by 
counsel, demurred to the indictment, thus in law admitting 
all of the facts to be true — yet, despite all, Dougal McDou- 
gall, of New York, the innocent man, was held in bail upon 
this indictment against John T. McDougall of Hoboken, 
N. J., the guilty party. 

After John T. McDougall had given bail June 30 (we 
met him coming out of Mr. Ridgway's office), he returned to 
his gambling business. He was found there the same day, 
again violating the law, when the officer sent by Mr. Ridg- 
way arrived (with Mr. Britton and the Union reporter) to 
notify his associates, — two gamblers who had been jointly 
indicted with him, — that they had been indicted, and re- 
quested them to appear and give bail the next morning. 

The next morning he (John T.) appeared with his asso- 
ciates, and was with them when they gave bail. The wit- 
nesses saw them together at the race course the day they 
secured the evidence upon which they had been indicted, 
and we all saw them again July 1, when John T. brought his 
associates to give bail for them. 

Every effort was made upon our part to prevent such an 
outrage upon law and justice. We received for our pains a 
severe rebuke from the judge and slurring attacks from the 
press. 

The same afternoon the Brooklyn Union came out with an 
article headed : " Pool Humbug — The Wrong Men Indicted 
and the Wrong Men Arrested — Two Pool-sellers Arrested 
in New York on Bench Warrants — Anthony Comstock's Fu- 
tile Attempt to Convince Judge Moore that He was Proceed- 



LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. j* 

ing Wrongly in the Matter, but the Judge Sits Down on 
Comstock and Peremptorily Closes the Discussion. " 

We must now record a fact which we sincerely regret to 
be obliged to present ; but we record facts, and if we would 
be faithful, we must present them as they exist. 

WAS JUPGE MOORE ADVISED OF THE FACTS ? 

A few moments before eight o'clock on that morning, July 
ii, 1884, the following letter was left for him at his resi- 
dence, Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, by Mr. G. E. Oram. 
Mr. Oram reported in writing to delivering this letter at 20 
minutes before 8 o'clock July 11, 1884. Read this carefully. 

LETTER, JULY IO, 1884, TO JUDGE HENRY A. MOORE. 

July IO, 1884. 
Hon. Henry A. Moore, 
County Judge, 

Washington Avenue, 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Dear Sir : — As a friend of the court, I am advised to present the fol- 
lowing facts for your information : 

Statements have been made in open court before your Honor, and, so 
far as I have heard, not contradicted, that men have been arrested and 
required to give bail in certain indictments found by the last Grand Jury 
for violation of Section 351 of the Penal Code other than the ones in- 
dicted by the Grand Jury. 

The facts are as follows, and are susceptible of proof by three wit- 
nesses at least : 

On the 30th of June the Grand Jury filed indictments against twenty- 
two different persons. 

The same day, immediately upon the filing of said indictments, cer- 
tain persons came forward and at once gave bail without being arrested 
upon any warrant, as I am informed, to wit : Albert H. Cridge, David 
J. Johnson, Dougal McDougall, Mark Jordan, James E. Kelly, John S. 
Stow, Thomas Murray, James Dunn, and Michael Murray. Also, one 
John Kelly. 

The afternoon of the same day, by direction of the District Attorney, 
persons were sent to the race track at Sheepshead Bay, where these men 



;6 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



who had been indicted by the Grand Jury were actually engaged in vio- 
lating the law, with a list containing the names of persons indicted, 
these names having been furnished the Grand Jury by the witnesses as 
the names by which these men were known to the witnesses. 

One of the assistants in the District Attorney's office had this list of 
names. 

Mr. Britton, one of the witnesses before the Grand Jury, upon whose 
testimony these indictments were found, went with the officers of the 
District Attorney s office and personally pointed out the men whom he 
had testified against before the Grand Jury, and against whom these in- 
dictments had been found, and they were then and there notified that 
they had been indicted under certain names then given them. 

The men thus identified were in the very booths and committing the 
very crimes for which they had been indicted, occupying the very 
places and conducting the very same kind of business which they had 
been indicted for committing on the dates set out .in the several indict- 
ments. The parties so notified appeared the next morning voluntarily 
and gave bail to the indictments, before giving bail, however, being 
informed that they had been indicted as follows, to wit : 

A person giving the name of William Warring was the person identi- 
fied, known, and indicted as Peter Cridge, and gave bail under that 
indictment. 

The man giving the name of William McNamara was the man in- 
dicted and known to the witnesses as Frederick Dutch, and the person 
against whom the witnesses gave their testimony before the Grand Jury. 
He gave bail also. 

The same is true of the following parties, the first name being the 
name set out in the indictment and the last name the names which they 
claim as their correct names, but which was not known to the witnesses 
until after they had been notified that they had been indicted under the 
name set out in the indictments, to wit: 

Aaron Piatt, alias John White. 

Herman Schneider, alias Frank Snyder, 

George Rose, " James Fry, 

John Kelly, " F. Rodman, 

John Smith, " F. T. Bradley, 

Richard Baker, " T. J. Meehan, 

Charles Kimball, " Daniel Wartzfelder, 

George Hall, " James Varley, 

Andrew Fuller, " Daniel Gleason. 

These men, except Wartzfelder, Rodman, and Fry, were all before 
your Honor on Tuesday last. The witnesses were also present who 



LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. 77 

could have identified them to the court as the men actually indicted by 
the Grand Jury, and as being known to the witnesses as the persons under 
the names set out in the indictments. These were the only names by 
which these men were known to the witnesses until after they had been 
indicted, and notified that they had been indicted under the names set 
out in the several indictments. 

A man was indicted with Dougal McDougall known to the witnesses 
as John Kelly. Some man claiming to be named John Kelly, but em- 
ployed by some other person, and in no way connected with Dougal 
McDougall, was allowed to give bail upon this indictment in the District 
Attorney's office as soon as the indictments were filed, without being 
identified, or an opportunity given the witnesses to identify him, as the 
proper man. But the witness in the presence of the officers from the 
District Attorney's office, who went down to where these men were 
violating the laws on the first day of July, identified a man who gave 
the name of F. Rodman as the man that was known to the witnesses, 
and the man against whom they testified before the Grand Jury as John 
Kelly. And F. Rodman, as I am informed, has since appeared and 
given bail upon this indictment in the sum of $1000. 

Yesterday the Sheriff came with fourteen bench warrants to my office 
in New York to know the whereabouts of these men. I was obliged to 
say to the Sheriff that the men that were sitting in court on the 8th 
inst., after having given bail under each of these indictments, were the 
only ones known to us as the persons wanted upon those bench warrants. 
As the People took no cognizance of the fact that these men were in 
court, and as the bail was not forfeited, I could only send him to the 
men actually under bail, and the only ones wanted under these indict- 
ments, as they are the only men indicted by the Grand Jury. 

I can only add that the object of this letter is simply to advise the 
Court of the facts in the premises. 

To show the Court that there can be no mistake in this matter (if 
the men identified by the witness as the persons wanted are the same 
who gave bail), I have simply to present the simple fact that the per- 
sons who were actually engaged in violating the law upon the dates the 
three witnesses were present at Sheepshead Bay and obtained the evi- 
dence against them upon which the Grand Jury indicted them, that on 
the thirtieth day of June these same men were in the same sheds or 
stalls engaged in the same unlawful business, when the witness identi- 
fied them to the officers of the District Attorney's office, and these offi- 
cers notified each of them that they had been indicted under the names 
set opposite their names in this letter, and the names which they 



78 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



appeared of their own free will and gave bail to on the indictments the 
next morning. 

The men who gave bail on the various indictments ncnv before the court 
ere, so far as the witnesses have been permitted to see them^ the identical men 
indicted and called for in the indictments. 
I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 
Sec'y. 

In this letter, there having been but one McDougall 
(John T.) under bail, we used the names set out in the title 
of the case, as is customary in referring to a defendant under 
indictment. 

It will be seen by the foregoing letter that Judge Moore 
was informed of the irregular conduct of the District Attor- 
ney in protecting these gamblers by sending men to the race 
track, and instead of arresting, notifying them of the action 
of the Grand Jury before they were arrested, in violation of 
the Code. He was informed of the fact that the law was 
being openly violated in the presence of the officers of his 
court or District Attorney's office. He was clearly informed 
of the specific crimes that were then being committed, of the 
particular manner in which these men had been indicted, as 
well as the farce that had been enacted before him July 8, 
when the District Attorney's assistant, Mr. Jenks, remained 
mute and allowed these men to sit there in contempt of the 
proceedings of the court, without obliging them to come for- 
ward and plead to the indictments to which they had volun- 
tarily given bail as the right parties when they were called. 
These facts were faithfully presented to Judge Moore, and if 
no action was taken upon them, certainly the one who com- 
municated those facts to the learned judge cannot be 
blamed by him. 

And to further show the good faith of the agents of the 
Society for the Suppression of Vice, and the faithful manner 



ANOTHER LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. jg 

in which they have followed up these cases, read the follow- 
ing letter addressed to Judge Moore the same day, after he 
" sits down on Comstock and peremptorily closes the dis- 
cussion." 

This letter is worthy of more than passing notice. A 
careful reading will throw a strong light upon the history of 
these gambling cases, particularly the McDougall case. 
The effort to inform Judge Moore was falsely characterized 
as an attempt to dictate to the judge. 

July n, 1884. 

Hon. Henry A. Moore, 
County Judge, 

451 Washington Ave., 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Sir:— 

I most respectfully present to you that you do me a great injustice by 
charging me with attempting to dictate to you or any one else in the 
cases brought before you this morning. I, on the contrary, had no such 
thought or intention. I thought you were not acquainted with the facts 
in these cases. In the case of Mark Jordan and the case of Dougal 
McDoicgall the men actually indicted appeared voluntarily, and gave bail 
a very few moments after the indictments were filed. They knew that 
they were engaged committing the very offences for which they were 
charged in the indictment, and to prevent any interference with their un- 
lawful business, the principal men engaged openly in violating the laws 
at Sheepshead Bay race course stood, as it were, waiting with their 
bondsmen ready to give bail upon these indictments as soon as the in- 
dictments were filed. They virtually admitted that they were the men 
wanted, and were on hand before bench warrants could have been issued 
(unless they were drawn before the indictments were filed), ready to ad- 
mit themselves as the men called for in the indictments, and gave bail ac- 
cordingly. 

Again, the same afternoon, Mr. Britton went down with officers to the 
pool-stands, where the laws were openly violated, and these persons' 
unlawful business was interrupted long enough to enable the officers to 
notify those who had not given bail that they had been indicted, and they 
were then and there told what names they had been indicted under, and 
the next morning these men voluntarily appeared and voluntarily gave 
bail. 



go GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

After all this, they come into court and try to befog and deceive the 
Court and make it appear they have been arrested wrongfully. 

Your manner would indicate that I was doing some great wrong in 
thus addressing you. With great respect to the Court, permit me to say 
that any citizen has a right to see that the laws are properly enforced, 
and if one sees a court or judge being imposed upon, as I felt you were 
being, it seemed to me not wrong or improper for such a one to respect- 
fully call attention to the facts. 

Again, I have always understood that any person, however high in 
authority, could be approached by a citizen, however lowly, especially 
where it is a matter involving the integrity and good name of an entire 
State, and upon this theory I thought I had the right to address you in 
this particular. Laws are openly and flagrantly violated in Kings 
County by gamblers and pool-sellers, and have been for more than three 
years. Scores of indictments have been'ordered by the Grand Jury and 
never tried, notwithstanding in the majority of cases the evidence is pos- 
itive of the defendants' guilt. Gamblers from New York City, New Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania, men in some instances who have been convicted and 
sentenced for similar offences in other parts of the State, are permitted 
to come to Brooklyn and Kings County and openly set at defiance the 
laws of the State. Out of over fifty indictments in your court, all but 
two or three have been dismissed without a trial, when there has been 
positive evidence of guilt. 

For instance, David Philipps was arrested June 22, 18S3, charged with 
selling lottery policies ; was indicted Sept., 1883, and the indictment dis- 
missed without trial Dec, 1883, notwithstanding there were two wit- 
nesses to prove tha the sold the slip, backed by the manifold-book upon 
which the policy was recorded, which was seized on him at the time of 
arrest, and upon which he was entering lottery policies when arrested. 
This man, when arrested, was a special policeman, and we found his 
badge upon him. 

The same day Maurice Foster was also arrested, and the facts are 
precisely the same, except that he was not a policeman. His case was 
never tried, but summarily dismissed after indictment. 

Indictments against a number of men who, after being arrested and 
indicted once, continued on in the policy business, again arrested and in- 
dicted, were also summarily dismissed last December. I repeat, over 
fifty such indictments were never brought to trial, but, supported by abso- 
lute and positive evidence of guilt, were dismissed. 

Last year scores of gamblers, throughout the season, openly defied 
the laws of this State in Kings County, and after much opposition in the 
District Attorney's office I at last secured the indictment and arrest of 



ANOTHER LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. gl 

a large number ; yet not one of those cases has ever been tried. I am 
quite aware that a court cannot try criminals without the cases are 
brought before it for trial, and that ordinarily the District Attorney is 
the one to present these matters to the Court, but there are times when a 
citizen may speak to the Court and appeal to the Court. 

I have repeatedly defended your Honor's name from reproach, and 
defended you when I have heard you censured because the 'laws against 
these gambling schemes had not been enforced, by saying that " the 
trouble has been that they take good care not to allow their cases to 
come before the Court." 

I do not believe, and never have believed, that your Honor would 
permit your court to be used as a protection or cover for criminals, nor 
that you would allow the laws to be enforced in the interest of crime or 
so as to encourage those who make a business of violating the law, and 
because of my confidence, notwithstanding the rebuffs you have recently 
seen fit to give me, is the reason why I presented simply facts to your 
Honor. 

I have earnestly and faithfully sought to enforce the law in a legal 
manner. I have found tremendous opposition. I am neither dismayed 
nor do I despair. I expect to live to see the laws enforced in Kings 
County against gamblers, and I believe they would be if the cases could 
but be properly placed before the court and jury. 

It is claimed outside that nothing can or will be done ; that no matter 
what the evidence is, these cases will be tried the same as the others 
have been. 

Now, Judge Moore, do you wonder I earnestly sought to reach you, in 
view of all that has taken place in the past ? With the claims of the 
gamblers and their friends of the present, do I err in coming to a mag- 
istrate in whom I had confidence and pleading for an opportunity to 
present the facts ? 

I am frank to say the trouble in the past in bringing these criminals 
to justice, in securing the enforcement of the laws against gambling, and 
in checking the open, bold, and defiant violation of these laws, has not 
been from the fraternity of gamblers, but in the District Attorney's office. 
In these very cases it was charged by rumor that there had been a con- 
tract made that no person should be arrested nor any of their unlawful 
paraphernalia seized. This rumor I personally informed Mr. Ridgway 
of, and, notwithstanding it, his officer who had the bench warrant (as he 
informed me) visited the men indicted while they were actually engaged 
violating the very law under which they had severally been indicted. Yet 
none were arrested; the unlawful business was not interfered with, ex- 
cept interrupted long enough to notify them that they had been indicted, 
6 



g 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

and inform them of the name under which they had been indicted, and 
that they could come and give bail the next day in the forenoon (at an 
hour when there was no pool-selling, so that their unlawful traffic should 
not in any way be inconvenienced or interrupted by the enforcement of 
the law). All but one of these men voluntarily came to the District 
Attorney's office, as I am informed, the next day, and in presence of 
their counsel voluntarily gave bail, none of them raising a single objec- 
tion, that I heard, that they were not the persons indicted, and I was 
present when they signed their bonds. These men sat in your presence 
when their cases were called, and witnesses were there to identify them. 
Yet none of these facts are laid before the Court — not a word of remon- 
strance said on behalf of the people — while the claim is falsely made 
that none of these men are the parties indicted. I, knowing to the con- 
trary, felt it my duty to bring the matter to your attention, and requested 
Mr. Jenks so to do, informing him of the presence of these men and the 
witnesses to identify them. The man McDodgall, who was waiting to 
give bail when the indictment was filed, virtually admitted himself the 
guilty party. Again, Mr. Ridgway informed me that he had been ad- 
vised that Mr. Kelly (the boss gambler) would produce every man in- 
dicted if we would identify them. Accordingly Mr. Britton, an eye- 
witness to the offences for which they had been indicted, went down to 
the gamblers' stands, and Mr. Kelly aforesaid very kindly went about 
with him and the District Attorney's officer, and these men were notified 
as aforesaid. Not one of these facts was presented to the Court. Is 
there any law to shut the mouth of a citizen intent upon the honest en- 
forcement of these laws ? I wot not. 

During more than eleven years of experience in the courts I have fre- 
quently appeared before Judges of the Supreme Court of the United 
States sitting as U. S. Circuit Judges, and before Supreme Court Judges 
in various locations, and I have never been denied the right to present 
in a respectful manner whatever facts that pertained to the proper 
enforcement of the law. These high judges deemed it not improper to 
allow any citizen, however humble, to befriend the Court, and because of 
the uniform courtesy thus extended me in the honest efforts to secure 
justice and the proper enforcement of the laws, I thought I was not err- 
ing when, as a friend of the Court and back of a movement to enforce 
the laws, I brought to your Honor's mind the true facts in these cases. 

I am not so weak minded as to presume to dictate to any Court, 
neither am I so cowardly as to shrink from any duty, unpleasant though 
it be, when duty calls. When I see the representatives of the people 
standing mute, and allowing gross misstatements to 'be made in the 
court, in cases where I am interested and in which my duty is involved, 



ANOTHER LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. 83 

I certainly. shall endeavor in a proper manner to overcome the evil and 
make the facts known. 

If you knew the wild excitement of these gambling games, the long 
list of complaints coming of youth ruined by these gambling schemes, of 
women and children robbed by these merciless devices to rob the poor 
and credulous to enrich a few bosses, the increasing demoralization 
from the non-enforcement of these and kindred laws, you would not 
be surprised or vexed that I stood on the alert and firm not to allow 
a single advantage to these criminals. 

The importance of the subject, the record of past cases, and the in- 
justice done me by misconception of facts, is my apology for thus tres- 
passing upon your time at such length. 

Knowing and believing that I am right in these matters, I desire to 
be fully understood, being assured that no honest man will find fault 
with a sincere and determined effort to secure the proper enforcement 
of law against a body of criminals banded together in Kings County 
to defy and transgress the law. 

I certainly shall endeavor to conform to every rule laid down in 
your Honor's court, and if I should transgress, it will be from igno- 
rance, and not from premeditation or with wilful intent. 
I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 
Secretary. 

Nothing was done, so far as we can ascertain. 

Having performed our duty faithfully, we felt that we had, 
at least, the right of self-defence, and also the right to pre- 
sent the facts so as to expose the unfaithfulness of those who 
evidently were deceiving the Court. Note the very full and 
earnest manner in which these facts were presented to this 
Court. It will be interesting, in following out the history of 
these cases, to bear in mind that an earnest protest had been 
made to the Court itself. The Court had been informed, 
whether he regarded the facts or not. 

In presenting this correspondence it is done with feelings 
of sincere regret. The writer regretted the necessity of 
writing such a. letter. He also regrets the necessity of now 



8 4 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



putting it in its place in the history of these gambling cases. 
If the facts had not been laid before the Court, then the 
blame might be attached to this organization ; but we sub- 
mit that the candid reader must acknowledge that an honest 
and earnest effort was made on our part to secure the proper 
/administration of justice in these cases. We did what we 
could to secure the prosecution of these much-protected 
gamblers. 

This illustrates how easy it is for a prosecuting attorney 
to deceive and humbug a Court, make a defence for himself, 
and attempt to belittle those who dare to stand for truth 
and justice. 

Doubtless Judge Moore had some reason why he did not 
investigate these matters and put the seal of condemnation 
of his Court upon them. It is possible that he, being the 
judge, with many other things upon his mind, may have for- 
gotten them in the after history of the McDougall farce. 

NOT SO MR. RIDGWAY. 

After writing Judge Moore, the matter was again brought 
to the attention of Mr. Ridgway, both by letter and affidavit, 
which were delivered to him personally. 

IS THERE ANY EXCUSE FOR MR. RIDGWAY ? 

To demonstrate Mr. Ridgway's knowledge, and show the 
public that he is without excuse, we present the following 
letter, sent to Mr. Ridgway July 16, 1884, to wit : — 

New York, July 16, 1884. 
Hon. James A. Ridgway, 

District Attorney Kings Co., 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Dear Sir : 

Enclosed herewith please find affidavits identifying parties in the 
following cases, to wit : 
The People, 
vs. 
Dougal McDougall, who says his right name is John T. McDougall, 



85 



IDEA'TIFICA TION OF GAMBLERS. 

George Rose, who says his right name is James Fry, 
John Kelly, " " " " * " Frank Rodman. 

The People, 
vs. 
David J. Johnson, 

John Smith, who says his right name is F. K. Bradley, 
Richard Baker, " " " " " T. J. Meehan. 

The People, 
vs. 
Albert H. C ridge, 

Peter Cridge, who says his right name is Wm. Warring, 
Frederick Dutch, " " " " Wm. McNamara. 

The People, 
vs. 
Mark Jordan, who says his right name is Martin Jordan, 
Aaron Piatt, " " " « " John White, 

Herman Schneider, " " " " Frank Snyder. 

The People, 
vs. 
James E. Kelly, 
John S. Stow, 
Thomas Murray, 
Andrew Fuller, who says his right name is Daniel Gleason 

The People, 

vs. 

Michael Murray, 

Charles Kimball, who says his right name is Daniel Wartzfelder, 
George Hall, " " " " " James Varley. 

Very truly yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary, 
Per D. 

Let it be observed that the names first used are the only 
names in the indictments of June 30, and as there were no 
other indictments against these parties when this letter and 
affidavit were written, we used the title of the case as set out 
in the indictment. So in speaking of Dougal McDougall, 
who says his right name is John T. McDougall, reference is 
had to the person who gave bail June 30, and the quotation 



86 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



is taken from his bond. It is more clearly stated in the fol- 
lowing affidavit, which was one of several enclosed in this 
letter. 

The affidavit read as follows, setting out the title of the 
case as per the indictment of June 30, 1884, to wit : — 

Court of Sessions, County of Kings. 

The People 
vs. 

DOUGAL McDoUGALL, 

George Rose, and 
John Kelly. 
City of Brooklyn, County of Kings, J gs> 
and State of New York. > 

Joseph A. Britton, being of full age, of 150 Nassau Street, New 
York City, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he was a witness be- 
fore the Grand Jury in the above entitled case, and gave testimony 
against a person then known to him as Dougal McDougall aforesaid, 
whom deponent had personally seen at Sheepshead Bay violating Chap- 
ter (9) Nine of the Penal Code of the State of New York, as is more par- 
ticularly described in the indictment filed June 30, 1884, in the above en- 
titled case. 

Deponent is informed that the person known to deponent as Dougal 
McDougall appeared at the District Attorney's office, of his own volition, 
on the 30th day of June, 1884, and gave bail for his appearance upon 
said indictment upon the morning of the 30th day of June, immediately 
upon the filing of the indictment, and then claimed his right name was 
John T. McDougall. 

Deponent further says, on the afternoon of the same day he personally 
visited the place where the said McDougall had previously been seen by 
deponent violating the law upon the date complained of, and after -the 
said McDougall had given bail as aforesaid, saw him engaging in the same 
business, and with him the said George Rose, who then gave his right 
name as James Fry, and the said John Kelly, who also gave his name as 
Frank Rodman, and the last two were then and there acting with the 
said McDougall as upon previous occasions as specified in said indict- 
ment. 

Deponent further says, that afterwards, on the first day of July, 1884, 



JOHN T. McDOUGALL fDE/VT/FIED. %j 

the said Dougal McDougall, alias John T. McDougall, appeared again, 
accompanied by the said George Rose, alias James Fry, and John Kelly, 
alias Frank Rodman, when they appeared voluntarily, and gave bail upon 
said indictment ; and the said Dougal McDougall, now known as John 
T. McDougall, and George Rose, now known as James Fry, and John 
Kelly, now known as Frank Rodman, are the true and only individuals re- 
ferred to in said indictments and against whom deponent and the other 
witness gave testimony before the Grand Jury on said complaint, as 
more particularly set forth in affidavit form as now filed with the District 
Attorney or under his control, upon which said indictment is found. 
Deponent had conversation with the said McDougall on the ist day of 
July, as well as upon the former dates set out in this affidavit, and knows 
him by sight well, and knows that he is the man indicted and the man 
who committed the offence. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me ) r . „ 

this I6th day of July, 1884. I ] ° SE?A A " BRITT ° N * 

W. C. Beecher, 

Notary Public. 

Another affidavit filed in the same case, the same day, par- 
ticularly referred to James Fry and Frank Rodman in con- 
nection with John T. McDougall. 

Mr. Jere Wernberg, counsel, was a constant attendant upon 
these men as his clients, and was present when Mr. Britton 
identified them, June 30, to Mr. Ridgway's peace officer, 
and also when they gave bail. If these parties were not 
the right ones, why did he allow them to give bail ? They 
were not under arrest or obliged to give bail unless they de- 
sired to do so. 

July 18, 1884, to cure the defect in names, as it was 
claimed that some had been indicted under erroneous names, 
the witnesses were called before the Grand Jury, and those 
who sat mute July 8, by consent of Mr. Jenks, were re-in- 
dicted under the names which they had given when notified 
by Mr. Ridgway's peace officer, and under which they had 
given bail on the former indictment. 

These bills were filed July 23, 1884. 



38- GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

John T. McDougall, James Fry, and Frank Rodman were 
indicted in the new indictment as follows : — 

Title :— " The People, 

against 
u James Fry, alias George Rose. 
" Frank Rodman, alias John Kelly. 
" John T. McDougall, alias Dougal McDougall." 

Except the names, this indictment is word for word the same 
as the i?idictment of June 30, 1880. 

The last names are the ones they were known by to the 
witnesses previously to their indictment, June 30 ; the first 
are, as they claimed, their right names. 

None of those indicted July 23, 1884, were called upon to 
plead until Dec. 1, 1884. 

At that time Judge Moore overruled the demurs of July, 
1884, and judgment of conviction was entered upon eleven 
indictments, one of the eleven being the McDougall indictment 
of June 30, 1884. 

The writer and witnesses were all in court on this date, 
December 1, 1884. After the demurrer had been entered the 
Clerk of the Court called " John T. McDougall " to come 
and plead to this second indictment of July 23, 1884. This 
indictment, let it be remembered, was for the precise offence 
that a judgment of conviction had just been entered against 
John T. McDougall only a few moments before, under 
the June 30 indictment. John T. did not respond. Again 
the Clerk called, "John T. McDougall to the bar." Again 
there was no response. Whereupon Mr. Ridgway took the 
indictment and called " Dougal McDougall." To this 
Dougal, the innocent, responded with alacrity. As he ap- 
proached the bar the writer informed Mr. Ridgway that he 
(Ridgway) was mistaken ; that this man Dougal was not the 
party indicted, and that witnesses were then and there pres- 
ent to so swear, if he would call them. 

Notwithstanding the statement made to Judge Moore 



DID JUDGE MOORE KNOW? 



8 9 



July 11, and letter of same date ; the letterto Mr. Ridgwayof 
July 16, with accompanying afBadvits ; the demur of July 8 ; 
the judgment of conviction of even date (Dec. 1) against the 
right man, John T. McDougall — notwithstanding all these, 
James W. Ridgway insultingly replied to the offer to prop- 
erly identify his man, arraigned Dougal McDougall, of New- 
York, an innocent man, before Judge Moore in the Sessions 
Court, and obliged him to plead to an indictment found 
against John T. McDougall, of Hoboken, N. J., the real cul- 
prit, and then afterwards, to wit, Dec. 15, 1884, tried this 
same innocent man, upon this indictment, before Judge 
Moore and a jury, and the jury are reported as "rendering 
their verdict of not guilty without leaving their seats." 

DID JUDGE MOORE KNOW ? 

Suppose he ignored our protest in his Chambers of July 
11, 1884, and our letter of same date. 

Dec. 1 John T. McDougall had had judgment of conviction 
entered against him on his demurrer. Within half an hour 
afterwards the Clerk of the Court called twice for " John 
T. McDougall " to come forward to plead to the second in- 
dictment, found against him under his right name, dated 
July 23, 1884. He does not respond. Mr. Ridgway in loud 
tones calls " Dougal McDougall " (the innocent), and ar- 
raigns him before Judge Moore to plead to an indictment 
against John T. McDougall, the man just convicted for the 
very same offence. No objection is made by the Court, al- 
though the man who had been held to bail against- our pro- 
test July 11, 1884, was then and there substituted in open 
court. Dougal pleaded " not guilty," and Dec. 15 was 
named as a clay for his trial. 

ANOTHER FARCE. 

Afterwards another funny thing was enacted. Dec. 3, 
1884, John T. McDougall, of Hoboken, N. J., was obliged to 



OQ GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

give bail upon this second indictment for the precise offence 
for which he was then under judgment of conviction. Yet 
he has not yet pleaded to this indictment. So much for 
matters of record. 

ANOTHER LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. 

Determined that Judge Moore should not be deceived, 
Dec. 10, 1884, the following letter was left at his residence, 
by Mr. George E. Oram, to wit :-^ 

LETTER TO HENRY A. MOORE, DEC. IO, 1884. 

December 10, 1884. 
Hon. Henry A. Moore, 

Judge Kings County Court of Sessions, 
^Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Sir: 

I deem it my duty as a friend of the Court to present the following 
facts for your consideration and to further the ends of justice in Kings 
County. 

First. I enclose herewith the certified copy of sentences imposed up- 
on the following named persons, whose cases are now before you upon 
the indictments upon which judgment of conviction has been entered. 
In each of these cases I was personally in court at time of sentence in 
New York Court of Special Sessions, and know of my own knowledge 
that the parties named in the indictments before your honorable Court 
as James E. Kelly, John S. StoW, Thomas Murray, Michael Murray, 
James Varley, and Daniel Wartzfelder are the same as were sentenced in 
Special Sessions upon the dates set forth in the enclosed*" paper. 

Second. On the very day on which James E. Kelly, John S. Stow, and 
Thomas Murray were sentenced, upon their plea of guilty (June 16, 1884), 
each of these men was found in the afternoon of the same day commit- 
ting the same crimes at the town of Gravesend. Michael Murray and 
the other two men had been arrested and held for trial, and their cases 
had been before the court the same morning, and adjourned, and they 
too were engaged in the same unlawful business as Kelly and Stow and 
Murray, also at Gravesend, and Mr. Britton and two associates secured 
the evidence of their guilt on the same afternoon. 

Third. These men continued in the same unlawful business, and 
openly defied the laws of the State, and James E. Kelly and Michael 



THIRD LETTER TO JUDGE MOORE. g l 

Murray are each of them notorious offenders and are known as " boss 
gamblers." In September Messrs. J. A. Britton and George E. Oram, 
of this office, personally were present and saw these six men violating 
the law in the same manner and form asset out in the indictments now 
before your court. 

Fourth. The man whom Mr. Ridgway, District Attorney, called to plead 
upon the indictynent found against John T. McDougall, alias Dougal 
McDougall, et al. , is not the man indicted, nor the one against whom the 
witnesses gave testimony before either of the Grand Juries. 

June 30, the morning immediately following the filing of the indict- 
ments against pool gamblers at Gravesend, the " boss gamblers " volun- 
tarily appeared and gave bail. This haste was presumably to prevent 
any arrest during pool-selling hours, as they went right from the court to 
their unlawful business. The man indicted as Dougal McDougall gave 
his right name as John T. McDougall, and this man is, as far as any of 
the witnesses know, the only man known in these indictments, or as doing 
business at Gravesend in June last, by the name of McDougall. He was 
the " boss " of his booth or place, and an affidavit was filed in Mr. Ridg- 
way's office July last certifying to that fact. After filing the affidavit, 
the July Grand Jury called the witnesses before them, and John T. Mc- 
Dougall, the man who voluntarily gave bail June 30, 1884, was reindicted. 
This man, John T. McDougall, further appeared July 1, 1884, in the 
District Attorney's office, with his assistants, James Fry and Frank Rod- 
man, when they gave bail under the names under which they were indict- 
ed. Frank Rodman was known to the witnesses first as John Kelly, and 
was so indicted, was notified by an officer while engaged carrying on 
pool-selling June 30, 1884, that he had been indicted as John Kelly, and 
voluntarily appeared the next morning, July 1, 1884, and gave bail as the 
one indicted as John Kelly ; and since then, in July, 1884, the July Grand 
Jury have, as I understand, found new indictments against him in his 
own right name, or the name he says is his right name. 

But please take notice that in the mean time the zeal to give bail on 
behalf of the gamblers was so great that some other person, known as 
John Kelly or calling himself as such, voluntarily went to the District At- 
torney's office and was there permitted to give bail on this same indict- 
ment. This man is unknown to the witnesses, and was not in any man- 
ner testified against before the Grand Jury by either of them, as you will 
find by examining them. 

These facts have all been laid in writing before Mr. Ridgway, and yet 
for some reason he chooses to arraign Dougal McDougall, instead of 
John T. McDougall, upon an indictment found expressly against John 



g 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

T. McDougall, and after he had given his right name, and after Mr. 
Ridgway knew the above facts. 

Again, the man identified as Herman Schneider, afterwards indicted as 
Frank Snyder in July. I am informed that a person other than the one 
pointed out and indicted as Snyder has been brought in by James E. 
Kelly and has entered bail upon said indictment. The man which the 
witnesses knew and identified as Herman Schneider, and afterward knew 
as Frank Snyder, is described by each of them as a Jew, with black hair 
and mustache, and who wore a brown derby hat, drab lawn-tennis shirt, 
and is about twenty-eight years of age. 

The man Snyder who appeared before your Honor Dec. i, and 
pleaded *' not guilty, " is not the man. He came afterwards to me and 
informed me that he came and gave bail because Kelly told him to ; 
that he was not down to Gravesend and never saw Mr. Britton. Mr. 
Britton went with the officers June 30 (whom Mr. Ridgway sent to no- 
tify the gamblers, while they were actually violating the laws, that they 
had been indicted), and says he identified the man above described. 

I regret to add that the feeling in the District Attorney's office is 
such that I cannot hope to get these facts before your Honor ; and yet 
believing your Honor desires all the light from any source you can get, 
to further the ends of justice and to properly enforce the laws, I deemed 
these facts of sufficient importance to warrant this intrusion upon your 
time and attention. Please pardon my intrusion and believe me, 
Very respectfully, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Sec'y and Chief Special Agent. 

Another letter was sent Mr. Ridgway in reference to 
Snyder, which we present. Notwithstanding this letter and 
the one to Judge Moore, a man other than the one indicted 
and thus minutely described in each letter was tried in place 
of the guilty party. 

LETTER TO MR. RIDGWAY, DECEMBER 12, 1884. 

(Dictated.) 

December 12, 1884. 
Hon. James W. Ridgway, 
District Attorney, 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Sir: 

My assistants having received subpoenas to appear in the trial of 



LETTER IDENTIFYING GAMBLERS. q? 

Frank Snyder et a/., on Monday, I beg to state to you that the man in- 
dicted as Frank Snyder is a man of a Jewish cast, black or dark hair 
and mustache, about twenty-eight years of age ; while the man Snyder, 
whom you arraigned to plead on the first of this month was not the man 
indicted, nor the man identified by Mr. Britton, as he has light hair and 
light mustache. 

After the proceedings on the first day of December last, Mr. Snyder 
whom you arraigned to plead came outside of the court room and 
wanted to know what he had been indicted for, saying he had never been 
to the Sheepshead Bay race track, had never seen Mr. Britton, and that 
all he knew about it was that James E. Kelly (the boss gambler) told 
him to come up and give bail, and he came to the District Attorney's 
office and gave bail. 

You will kindly observe that this could not have occurred if the bench 
warrants had been executed against the men whom Mr. Britton identi- 
fied at the time they were violating the law at Sheepshead Bay on the 
thirtieth day of June, when he pointed them out to the officers whom 
you sent. 

You will please take notice that J. G. K. Lawrence, secretary of the 
Coney Island Jockey Club, and Mr. Caldwell, the starter, whose initials 
I believe are J. F., are material witnesses to prove that the particular 
horses ran in the races in which the pools were sold, and I am informed 
that you cannot go safely to trial in the absence of ^hese material wit- 
nesses. 

Respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary, 
PerT). 

Were they deceived, or could they not tell the difference 
between the men described in my letter ? Did we perform 
our part faithfully or not ? 

Notwithstanding all, Dougal, the innocent, of New York, 
was tried in place of John T., the guilty, of Hoboken, N. J., 
before Judge Moore and a jury Dec. 15, 1884. So far as 
known, John T. has never yet been arraigned to plead to his 
last indictment. After Dougal pleaded, Dec 1., John T. 
appeared and gave bail on the same indictment Dec. 3, 1884 ; 
yet Dougal was tried in place of John, Dec 15. 



9 4 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



WHY DID NOT DOUGAL M'DOUGALL REMONSTRATE? 

11 Barkis was willing." Why ? Dougal was not friendly 
to our Society. He had been knocked out of a very profita- 
ble business in New York, been indicted, and pleaded 
" guilty " to two indictments in the General Sessions Court of 
New York City, been sentenced to pay a fine on one, and 
judgment, pending good behavior, had been suspended on 
the other. John T. was his brother, or so stated. It was 
natural for him to sympathize with his brother. The im- 
portant thing, then, was to discredit the writer and turn the 
tables upon him. " Anything to beat the efforts of the 
Society for Suppression of Vice," seemed to be the cry. 

Dougal knew, doubtless, that he was in good hands. 
He and his counsel cheerfully acquiesced in the plans of 
the prosecuting attorney, as neither of them made any pro- 
test or objection to Dougal's pleading to this indictment 
against John T., his brother. The Court turned a deaf ear 
to the facts in our letter of Dec. 10. The gamblers were 
jubilant. This was almost as good sport to them as "im- 
proving the breed of horses " by their favorite plan. 

Was there an agreement to protect gamblers at Sheeps- 
head Bay during 1884 ? 

Was James E. Kelly, boss gambler, a false prophet 
when he said on June 30, " The Grand Jury wil.l adjourn and 
these indictments will be pigeon-holed " ? 

Lest the reader may be skeptical as t6 the possibility of 
such an outrage occurring in a Court of Justice in this 
country, I desire to emphasize the fact that the writer was 
present, saw and heard for himself, prepared the letters 
and affidavits, and now has beside him certified copies of 
the indictments, the John T. McDougall bail-bonds, and 
extracts from the minutes of the Court where Dougal, the 
innocent, was tried in the place of John T., the guilty. 



MR. RIDGWAY SWEARS AGAIN. 



95 



STILL A GREATER SURPRISE. 

The science of justice by the gambling method is almost 
on a par with the Kings County system of " improving 
the breed of horses." 

The foregoing facts, I protest, are facts, and I hold myself 
ready to prove the same before Governor, Legislative Com- 
mittee, or public. 

While preparing this chapter there was served upon the 
writer, at 4.30 p. m., Jan. 28, 1887, a copy of Mr. Ridgway's 
answer to our charges against him before the Governor of 
the State, sworn to before his Chief Clerk, Mr. Walkley. 

In his answer to Specification 1, Charge 4, which alleges 
the above facts, Mr. Ridgway presents the following as his 
sworn answer. 

I present the affidavit first, as signed by him, which ap- 
pears at the close of his remarkable document, so that the 
reader may see another one of his oaths, and give his an- 
swer the benefit of reading it through the sworn instrument 
which he has appended to give force and weight to what he 
says. 

MR. RIDGWAY SWEARS. 

The respondent, James W. Ridgway, above named, being duly 
sworn, deposes and says, that the foregoing answer is true of his own 
knowledge, except as to matters therein stated or alleged upon 
information and belief, and as to those matters he believes the same to 
be true. 



James W. Ridgway. 



Sworn to before me this 24th 
day of January, 1887. 



A. H. Walkley, 

Notary Public, 

Kings County. 



9 6 



GA MB LING O UTRA GES. 



Read his version. He has my gratitude for his answer. 
Can anything be worse evidence against him than his own 
oath, in face of the facts? 

He says : 

CHARGE 4. 

In answer to Specification 1 of Charge 4 : " Respondent avers that 
one John McDougall was indicted by the Grand Jury on the testi- 
mony of the officers acting with, and agents for, Anthony Corn- 
stock ; that when said officers appeared before the Grand Jury they 
testified that they did not know whether said McDougall' s name 
was John T. McDougall or Dugold McDougall ; whereupon 
the Grand Jury found a bill against John T. McDougall, alias 
Dugold McDougall, and John T. McDougall appeared and 
gave bail on such indictment, and at the time he gave bail, the 
witness who testified against him in the Grand Jury room was 
present in the District Attorney's office and identified him as the per- 
son he had testified against ; that thereafter John T. McDougall was 
taken before the Court of Sessions to plead to such indictment, 
and he then and there claimed to be innocent, and that said witness 
again identified him as the person against whom he had testified ; that 
said McDougall insisted upon being tried before a jury, and was 
thereupon notified for trial ; that before the day of trial respondent 
was notified that the officers of said Society for the Suppression of Vice 
had been in consultation with said defendant since his arrest, and had 
agreed with said defendant that they would testify upon his trial that 
he was not the person that they had seen violate the law , that respond- 
ent, believing that said officers were acting corruptly, and intending to 
test the truth of such belief, insisted that said defendant should be tried 
in open court before a jury ; that said officers, having a knowledge of 
that fact, wrote to respondent insisting that said McDougall was 
not the person ; whereupon respondent placed said McDougall on 
trial, and called the witnesses who had testified against him before the 
Grand Jury, who were sworn, and under oath declared that they had 
never seen said McDougall on the race track ; whereupon said 
McDougall was acquitted; that thereafter the Grand Jury found 
an indictment against one Dugold McDougall, who was convicted 
under said indictment, in the Court of Sessions of the County of 
Kings." 

The statements aforesaid are false. The witnesses identi- 
fied these men, as already stated aforesaid by letters, affida- 



FALSE OATH. g» 

vits, etc. Dougal was not " thereafter indicted and convict- 
ed/' There were but two indictments : one of June 30, 1884, 
and the other July 23, 1884, and both for the same offence 
and against one and the same man. What reckless swearing 
on Mr. Ridgway's part ! This is the man who asks the pub- 
lic to accept his word and oath as against that of the writer, 
backed as the writer is by all the documentary evidence pro- 
duced. Again he says, in answer to Specification 4 of 
Charge 4 : — 

" Respondent denies that he wilfully and deliberately substituted one 
defendant for another, and avers that he was not acquainted either 
with John T. McDougall or Dugold McDougall, and that he relied 
for identification upon the officers of the Society for the Suppression 
of Vice, and that the same man whom said officers identified, and who 
appeared and gave bail, and who plead and was again identified in open 
court, was the same man that respondent placed upon trial, and was 
the same man who was acquitted, and whom it is alleged was an inno- 
cent man substituted for a guilty one." 

Read the letters of July 16 ; the affidavits of same date ; 
the demur of John T., July 8, 1884; the letters of July 10, 
n ; to Judge Henry A. Moore; the protest before Judge 
Moore of July 11 ; the attack of the public press upon 
deponent : then consult the records of the Court, the bail- 
bonds, the indictments, and see if there is a single word of 
truth in the statements made by Mr. Ridgway under his 
oath in the answer aforesaid. 

Passing over much else in his answer that is false and mis- 
leading, we quote concerning a subject of which the public 
have at least some knowledge. He swears : 

" When the public press was discussing the probabilities of respond- 
ent's renomination to the office of District Attorney, said Comstock 
again preferred such charges, doubtless for the purpose of influencing 
the public mind against respondent ; that said Comstock has caused 
to be published more than fifty times the matters embraced in these 
specifications, and the matter has been thoroughly discussed from the 
pulpit and public press and in public halls in the County of Kings, and 
7 



93 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



the charges so preferred were made the sole and only planks in the platform 
upon which the gentleman who was nominated against respondent appealed 
to the suffrages of the people of the County of Kings ; and it was then as- 
serted by an opposing press, and re-echoed by the orators on the stump, that 

THIS WAS THE SOLE AND ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE PEOPLE." 
HAS MR. RIDGWAY FORGOTTEN 

that at a meeting held November 4, 1886, of twenty- 
thira warders, in Liberty Hall, Nostrand and Gates Avenues, 
he (Ridgway) delivered an address ? In this address he is 
reported in various papers as saying, concerning Rev. Theo. 
L. Cuyler, D.D., who preached a sermon on temperance, 
as follows : 

" Under the leadership of his little friend, Billy Goodrich, he opened 
his church last Sunday and preached that I was the friend of the wine- 
bibber, and in favor of opening the German gardens on Sunday and 
having a good time. That probably prejudiced me in the minds of some 
of those who listened. He was under the impression that his church 
contained all the voters of the city. Next morning I cut out that por- 
tion of his speech, had it printed, and had 50,000 copies of it distributed 
around the Eastern District, where all good German fellow-citizens live, 
and I carried the Sixth Ward by more than 600 majority. So the old 
gentleman, who thought he was doing me an injury, did me so much good. 
I take this opportunity of returning my sincere and heartfelt thanks." 

Was gambling the only issue ? 
Again he swears : 

" These charges were preferred before a committee of Christian minis- 
ters of the City of Brooklyn, and respondent appeared before that body 
and made answer to such charges : that the charges are false and untrue, 
made without any hope or belief that they willie sustained or that judgment 
will be rendered against respondent, but are made clearly for the purpose 
of influencing a certain class of people upon whom complainant depends 
for his livelihood." 

Read what the Christian ministers above referred to say. 
It will be remembered that October 1, 1886, by invita- 
tion of the Clerical Union of Brooklyn, the Secretary of the 



MINISTERS' REPORT. gg 

New York Society for the Suppression of Vice presented the 
facts to the ministers of Brooklyn at a meeting held in the 
hall of the Brooklyn Y. M. C. A. A committee was then 
and there appointed, at the request of the speaker, consist- 
ing of the following gentlemen, to investigate as to the 
truthfulness of statements then made, to wit : Revs. George 
E. Reed, Thomas A. Nelson, Jesse B. Thomas, Alfred J. 
Hutton, I. J. Lansing, J. C. Ager, Edward B. Terhune, Jus- 
tin D. Fulton, George F. Pentecost, and Lindsay Parker, to 
whom additions afterwards were made as follows : L. T. 
Chamberlain, Rabbi William Sparger, G. F. Behringer, W. 
H. Thomas, Father Malone, A. J. Canfield, and John W. 
Chadwick. 

This committee made a thorough examination into the 
statements, records of the courts, and into the law. They 
invited Messrs. Ridgway and Catlin and heard what they 
had to say in their own defence, and then concluded their 
report as follows : 

" i. In conclusion the committee beg to say that after patient and labo- 
rious examination of the facts within their reach, together with the state- 
ments of interested parties, they do not find that Mr. Comstoch's state- 
ments can be successfully impeached in any essential particular. 

" 2. That the provisions of the law, and the resources for its enforce- 
ment within reach of the District Attorney, during the past nine years, 
have been ample for the suppression of the evils complained of, as is 
evidenced by the statements of the present District Attorney concerning 
its recent — and, as he alleges, complete — extinction, as well as from the 
facts and other data herewith submitted, and that the persistent and pub- 
lic continuance of gambling in Kings County during that period argues 
most reprehensible delinquency on the part of the persons implicated in 
these charges." 

Mr. Ridgway had the brazen effrontery, February 5, 1887, 
when before Governor Hill, arguing his motion to dis- 
miss our charges, to say : " The clergymen vindicated me, 
and some of them went the next Sunday and preached in 



IOO GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

my favor, while others denounced the gentlemen opposing 
me." The committee also say : 

" 3. That while the primary responsibility for failure to enforce existing 
laws against gaming rests with the District Attorney, the facts, never- 
theless, which have come before the committee force them to the con- 
viction that among officials at large, concerned in the administration of 
the law under consideration, there has been exhibited a failure to realize 
the gravity and extent of the gambling evil and an inexcusable lethargy 
in its suppression." 

The report was unanimously adopted by the gentlemen 
present, including a large number of clergy and others who 
had gathered to hear the report of this committee. 

This report was submitted October 29, 1886. 

Reader, who is telling the truth ? 



MORE OUTRAGES. IOI 



CHAPTER VII. 

MORE OUTRAGES AGAINST LAW AND JUSTICE. 

Go back now to September, 1884, and we can find evidence 
to confirm James E. Kelly, the boss gambler, when he said, 
June 30, in prophetic words of consolation, to his trembling 
associates in crime : "The Grand Jury will adjourn and the 
indictments will be pigeon-holed, etc. At any rate, our 
business will not be interfered with this season." 

Was there a contract to protect these gamblers ? I do 
not say. Contract or no contract, they were protected from 
prosecution, despite our best efforts, and their unlawful 
business was not interfered with, even though good evidence 
was secured against them, and placed at the disposal of the 
District Attorney. 

The Fall season on the Sheepshead Bay race course 
opened in September, 1884. The same gamblers who had 
been indicted the June before again appeared with their 
gambling paraphernalia and occupied the fifty or more 
booths. 

No sooner had gambling commenced than many rumors 
began to circulate, and boasts of gamblers that they were all 
right ; that they " had everybody fixed " ; that there would be 
no interference allowed throughout the season ; even the 
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice had been 
silenced and would do nothing. 

On or about the 10th day of September, 1884, the follow- 
ing came in a letter to our office, charging that an employe 
of Mr. Kelly had secured my silence and controlled me by 
the payment of $2500. 



I02 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Mr. Anthony Comstock, 
Dear Sir : — 

T have been disappointed that your Society has taken no action this 
fall towards the suppression of pool-selling on the race grounds at 
Coney Island. I watched your efforts last spring with a great deal of 
pride, and although through the apathy of the officials in Kings County, 
whose duty it was to aid you, you failed to suppress it, still persistent 
effort on your part will banish the glaring evil as effectually as your 
efforts have ridden the community of the pest of vicious literature. I 
write you now particularly for your own vindication. I have been 
told that a man connected with the Coney Island Jockey Club, 
named Roe or Rowe, has said that he bad secured your sUence 
and controlled you by the payment of $2500. I believe this to be false, 
but notorious gamblers, including Michael Murray and James Kelly, 
have openly boasted in the Fifth Avenue Hotel that this was 
accomplished. 

We do not lie under any such charges or insinuations with- 
out doing something to vindicate ourselves. Immediately 
upon the receipt of this letter steps were taken to nail this 
lie. Two things were done. 

First, the following advertisement was inserted in the 
Brooklyn papers, to wit : 

BLACKMAILER ADVERTISED. 

" Within the last few days rumors have come to me that certain 
parties are demanding and receiving blackmail from pool-sellers and 
gamblers in the County of Kings in my name. Again, it is reported 
that a man named Roe, or Rowe, has given it out that he has paid me 
$2500. In view of the above statements, which are each and every one 
of them maliciously false, so far as I am concerned, I desire, through 
your columns, to offer a reward of $50, for evidence sufficient to convict 
any person guilty of blackmailing any gambler, or any other person, in 
my name or the name of the New York Society for the Suppression of 
Vice. 

" Also for evidence that will sustain a suit for slander against any 
person who says or represents that he or any other person has so un- 
lawfully paid money to me or any agent of this Society. Any 
representation that I have ever, directly or indirectly, received money 



DID MR. RID GWAY KNG W? 1 03 

from a criminal is false in toto, and if any other person is receiving or 
claiming to receive money in my name, I desire to know the fact. 

" Respectfully yours, 

"Anthony Comstock." 

A still more effectual measure was adopted, but failed, 
through no fault of ours, as the facts will show. 

Secondly, September 16 we secured the positive evidence 
against seventeen gamblers, thirteen of whom were of those 
who had been indicted, protected, and shielded from arrest 
or interference with their unlawful business the June 
previous. 

Complaints were drawn in due form of law, and September 
18 these complaints, with the witnesses, were taken to Mr. 
Ridgway's office. He was not to be found. 

The following letter was left in his office on the same date. 
This letter contains the names of the defendant gamblers, 
the names of the witnesses, and the specific crime charged. 

Read this letter carefully, and then say whether or no Mr. 
Ridgway " had reason to believe these gamblers offenders 
against Chapter IX. of the Penal Code," particularly Section 

35*- 

FIRST LETTER TO MR. RIDGWAY, OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1884. 

The New York Society for the Suppression of 
' Vice, 150 Nassau Street, Room 9. 

New York, Sept. 16, 1884. 
Hon. James A. Ridgway, 

District Attorney County of Kings, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Sir :— 

T respectfully call attention to the fact that I have positive evidence 
that at Sheepshead Bay race track the following parties, who were in- 
dicted in June, are continuing in the most open and positive manner to 
violate the laws of this State, particularly Section 351 of the Penal Code, 
to wit: James E. Kelly, Daniel Gleason, John S. Stow, Albert H. 
Cridge, William Warring, William McNamara, James Dunn, Michael 



l0 A GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Murray, Daniel Wartzfelder, James Varley, David J. Johnson, F. K. 
Bradley and T. J. Meehan. 

In addition to the above, the following parties were also present 
violating the law, to wit: Edward Ross, William Lovell, John Clark, 
and John Doe, the last two whose real names are unknown, but who can 
be identified. 

I beg also to present further, that on the 16th day of September 
Messrs. Joseph A. Britton, George E. Oram, and Elias C. Baldwin, of 
this office, were sent by me to investigate and see if the laws were 
violated at Sheepshead Bay race track, and each of them is waiting in 
this office with affidavits drawn certifying to the open and flagrant viola- 
tion of the law by the above named parties in their presence on that 
day, ready to go, if you will permit or direct, to your assistants in 
Brooklyn, and with your assistant before any Supreme Court Judge or 
County Judge, and secure warrants and search warrants for the arrest of 
these gamblers and the seizure of the unlawful paraphernalia exposed 
and there being used by them. 

The urgency of this case lies in the fact that to-day, to-morrow, and 
next day the races continue, and these men will continue their unlawful 
business. 

Please take notice that I have the affidavits drawn and signed by the 
complaining witnesses, and that I have been over to Brooklyn to see 
you personally in reference to this matter, and am informed by the 
assistants in your office that you are in attendance in court in New York 
as a witness. I therefore write these facts and respectfully ask that you 
will give such direction in this matter as will enable us to secure 
warrants for the arrest of these men, and search warrants to seize their 
unlawful paraphernalia thus being publicly used and employed in 
violation of the law of this State, in order that we may arrest these 
parties this afternoon while they continue to violate the law. 

I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully yours, etc., 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Sec'y N. Y. Soc. for the S. of V. 



Not hearing from Mr. Ridgway, another letter was sent 
the same clay, asking him to telegraph us what hour the 
next morning we could see him. 

The witnesses were also sent over, and remained at his 
office until after three o'clock p. m. He came not. 



MR. RIDG WA Y KNE W. 



I05 



SECOND LETTER TO MR. RIDGWAY. 

Sept. 18, 1884. 
Hon. James W. Ridgway, 

District Attorney County of Kings, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Sir :— 

This morning about half-past ten I called at your office, and was 
informed you had gone to the General Sessions Court in New York. 
I wrote a letter and sent it over to you there ; 'but found you had gone 
from there. I then returned with the witnesses to Brooklyn in hopes of 
finding you, and left the witnesses with instructions to remain and see 
you up to and until after three o'clock. They report that they were un- 
able to see you. 

I therefore take the liberty of sending herewith to you this letter to 
further ask that you will telegraph me in the morning what hour I can 
see you at your office to-morrow morning. 

I will have the witnesses there to prove that all of the persons named 
in my letter, of to-day, which I left at your office, were on the 16th inst. 
openly violating the laws of the State, and there is every reason to 
believe will continue to do so, so long as the races last at Sheepshead 
Bay. 

As there are but two days' more races on the programme for this 
month, I especially ask that you will allow me to bring the affidavits, 
which are already signed by the witnesses, and have them submitted to 
one of the judges of the County Court, or Supreme Court Judge, in order 
that warrants may be issued to arrest the men openly defying the laws 
of this State,, and to seize paraphernalia that has been used publicly 
and openly during two months of the present year at least, to wit : June 
and September. 

I beg to say that, inasmuch as you informed me that you had men 
employed at Brighton Beach race course at Coney Island to secure 
the evidence against the gamblers there, I have turned my attention 
more directly to the Sheepshead Bay race track, so as not to have any 
conflict with your officers. 

I am informed that some of the men that were indicted last October 
have been in the business at Brighton Beach during the entire summer, 
and if your men cannot find these men thus openly violating the law, if 
you will send them to me I will be very happy to inform them where 
these men are doing business openly — so openly, indeed, that they will 



I0 5 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

only have to pass by on the public thoroughfare to see the open viola- 
tion of law. 

I would also respectfully submit that if you would subpoena Chief 
of Police McKane, he would be able doubtless to give you important 
evidence, as a large gambling establishment has been open for the sale 
of pools nearly opposite to his headquarters during the entire season. 
Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

Mr. Ridgway, in his answer to the Governor, swears he had 
no information that any of the men continued to violate the 
laws. 

Hearing nothing from Mr. Ridgway, the next day, Sept.- 
19, 1884, the writer and witnesses again went over to 
Brooklyn, to the District Attorney's office. He had gone to 
New York. We were informed that a letter had been sent 
to our office by Mr. Ridgway. We returned and found the 
following : 

LETTER FROM MR. RIDGWAY, DATED SEPT. 19, 1 884. 

Office of the District Attorney, Kings County. 
Court House, Room 3, B rooklyn, N. Y. 
Sept. 19, 1884. 
Mr. A. Comstock, 
Dear Sir : — 

I am in receipt of your communication of the 18th inst. calling my at- 
tention to certain violations of Section 351, of the Penal, Code, on the 
16 inst., and informing me that Joseph A. Britton, George E. Oram, and 
Elias C. Baldwin were present and witnessed such violations, and that 
they are prepared to furnish proof as to the fact of such violations. 
You are hereby notified to produce the above named witnesses before 
one of the Justices of the Peace of the town in which such violations 
took place, at one o'clock this day, at the Town Hall in the town of 
Gravesend, at which time assistant District Attorney Clark will be 
present, prepared to act for the prosecution and to render all the assist- 
ance necessary to prepare the complaints and obtain the warrants nec- 
essary for the arrest of the parties against whom the proof is furnished. 

Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Jas. W. Ridgway. 



FALSE OA TH OF MR. RIDGWA Y. ioy 

This letter was received by us too late for us to have 
reached Coney Island in time, even if we had been duly 
subpoenaed to go there. We were not subpoenaed at all. 

Immediately upon the receipt of this letter we made 
answer by writing the following letter, which was received 
and read by Mr. Ridgway, in presence of the writer and 
one of our assistants, the same day. Mr. Ridgway was at 
the General Sessions Court House, in New York City, in 
the Hall adjoining Part II., when he received and read It. 

This letter states why we would not voluntarily go before 
a Justice of the Peace of the town of Gravesend. We sub- 
mit that our reasons are cogent and wise. 

Before reading this letter, note what Mr. Ridgway swears 
to, in his answer to our charges before the Governor, concern- 
ing the reasons why we did not go before the Justices 
2X Gravesend. Take his oath and compare it with our 
documentary evidence, and then where is he ? He swears 
as though there was no other ground of our objection to go 
to Gravesend. He says :— 

"That said Comstock on that day, in answer to respondent's re 
quest, wrote to respondent a letter in which he refused to appear 
before a Justice of the Peace of the town of Gravesend, and alleged 
as a reason for such refusal that he and his officers were in fear of 
some personal violence, yet, notwithstanding such declination, the 
officers whom he referred to were actually upon the race track on that 
day, and were engaged in the buying of pools." 

The witnesses were all in our office in New York City 
awaiting Mr. Ridgway's orders, and four witnesses can prove 
this, notwithstanding Mr. Ridgway's oath. He swears 
positively; as from personal knowledge. Now read the 
evidence against Mr. Ridgway's oath. 



IQ 3 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

LETTER TO JAMES W. RIDGWAY, SEPT. 1 9, 1 884. 

New York, Sept. 19, 1884. 
Hon. James W. Rtdgway, 

District Attorney County of Kings, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Dear Sir : — 

I am in receipt of your favor of the 19th inst., notifying me that you 
have received mine, and also notifying me to produce the witnesses be- 
fore one of the Justices of the Peace of the town of Gravesend at one 
o'clock to-day, at which time assistant District Attorney Clark will be 
present prepared to act for the prosecution, etc. 

In reply I respectfully present to you, the same as I have presented 
before, that I do not consider the Justices of the Peace of the town of 
Gravesend proper persons to present these cases before. 

First, because I understand and am informed that they are by law the 
Commissioners of Police, and as such Commissioners have authority and 
control over the police of that town, and having such control, have 
allowed their subordinates to be present throughout the season where 
these laws have been violated, protecting the gamblers' interest. 

If they are not Police Commissioners, then I am wrongly advised in 
reference to the matter and should be glad to be advised by you. If 
they are Police Commissioners and have allowed their subordinates year 
after year, as has been the case, to stand where the laws are openly vio- 
lated, and to aid and abet these men by preserving order while the gam- 
blers violate the law, then they are not proper persons to administer the 
law against the gamblers whose interest they have protected. 

Second, as was fully stated to you in June last; there is no adequate 
police protection for the agents of this Society to protect them from the 
violence of the mob of gamblers and cut-throats that congregate in these 
places, and I will not consent that the lives of the agents of this Society 
shall be jeopardized, when the law permits and makes it equally the 
duty of any Supreme Court Judge or County Judge to whom application 
is made on behalf of the people to issue their warrants and apprehend 
these men. 

Another reason for making the request that you take the matter be- 
fore the County Judges or Supreme Judge is, that to arrest seventeen of 
these gamblers and seize the unlawful paraphernalia which these men 
there have in public use, requires a larger force than the police force of 
the town of Gravesend can furnish independent of the police officers 



THIRD LETTER TO MR. R IDG WAY. 109 

who are paid by those interested in the conducting of these gambling 
schemes, and who are constantly in attendance upon these crimes. 

It is well known to you that the sheriff's officers have already been 
assaulted by the local police. 

It is equally well known to you that the crimes of which I complain 
are so openly conducted that every official in the County of Kings is 
aware of the fact, and especially the police of Gravesend, who knowingly 
permit these laws to be violated, and I respectfully submit that as Dis- 
trict Attorney of the County of Kings, with a full knowledge of these 
facts, you have no right to expect three or four men to go down and 
face the mob of gamblers and outlaws far away from police protection, 
with local officials angered because of what they call our interference, 
when we as citizens obtain the evidence of crime and bring it to your 
office and ask for the enforcement of these laws. 

I place the responsibility upon you of bringing these men to justice, 
now, while they are openly violating the law. The complaints are drawn 
and signed by the witnesses and ready to be taken before any one of the 
County Judges or Supreme Court Judges in the city of Brooklyn. 

We are ready to go at a moment's notice before any of those judges ; 
but as for sending my men down to face this mob of law-breakers, it 
shall not be done with my consent, because I know that it is placing the 
lives of these men in jeopardy. And if one of them should lose his 
life, I should feel that I was guilty of murder in yielding to the demand 
which you thus make upon me, with a full knowledge of the facts before 
you. 

These are unusual crimes that are being committed. 

During the month of June, as you well know, and again during the 
month of September, with your knowledge and consent, these gamblers 
have openly defied the law, and you have failed to bring them to justice, 
to put one of them on trial, or to interfere or permit the unlawful para- 
phernalia which they use for gambling to be in any manner seized or 
disturbed. And I don't propose that you, as District Attorney, shall shirk 
the responsibility by any such subterfuge as thai- set out in your letter of 
the 19th inst. 

When the gamblers defied the law in the County of Queens, and the 
local authorities would not act, Justice Gilbert, of the Supreme Court, 
mindful of the obligations of his office, promptly issued his warrants, 
and these men were arrested. 

Repeatedly in the courts in the County of New York the judges of the 
higher courts, when applied to, have issued their warrants, and the men 
have been arrested. 

Now, sir, again I present to you these affidavits and witnesses, and 



IIO GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

demand in the name of the laws which you have knowingly permitted to 
be outraged the arrest of the criminals whom you have knowingly per- 
mitted to violate the law even after they were indicted. 

I call upon you, in the name of the people of the State of New York, 
to take these papers and witnesses before some judge who is not in any 
way beholden to these men, and where the witnesses shall be protected 
in their lives and liberty, and bring these men to justice. If this cannot 
be done, then I respectfully demand of you that the witnesses be 
brought at once before the Grand Jury and immediate action be taken. 

You will pardon any show of feeling in this letter, but it comes from 
an earnest determination to see laws that have been year after year in 
the most public manner outraged and violated, respected, enforced, and 
obeyed. 

You, as District Attorney, knowingly permit professional gamblers to 
come within the jurisdiction of your courts and continue their nefarious 
business without let or hindrance on your part, while the indictments 
filed by the Grand Jury in your county slumber in your office I am 
ready to co-operate to the fullest extent in any reasonable and proper 
manner to secure the enforcement of these laws, and that at once, and I 
demand at your hands prompt and immediate action, that these laws may 
be enforced against this organized band of criminals. 
I have the honor to be, sir, 

Very respectfully yours, etc., 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

After Mr. Ridgway had read this letter he turned and said 
to the writer : " I notify you in the presence of this witness 
that I have sent Mr. Clark down to the Town Hall of Graves- 
end, and have arranged to have a magistrate there, and I 
sent you word to take your witnesses and go there, and that 
Mr. Clark was there to attend to the matter." To which the 
writer replied : "Yes, I admit receiving a letter embodying in 
substance what you have said, but in return I notify you that 
I went over this whole matter last June, and showed you that 
the Justices of the Peace are by law Police Commissioners ; 
that they appointed the policemen at Gravesend, permitted 
them to be employed by the gamblers, and detailed them to 
witness the daily violations of law, the gamblers and those 



INTER VIE W WITH MR. RIDG WA Y. m 

interested in the races paying their weekly salaries. I am 
informed by one of the Justices of Peace that they are, by law, 
Police Commissioners, and that they have appointed these 
men as special policemen, sworn them in as policemen and 
then assigned them to the gamblers, and that the gamblers 
pay them as policemen. This is an extraordinary crime, 
where these men have for years openly defied the laws, and 
where the local officials knowingly permit these laws to be 
violated ; and I say to you that as for sending the matter be- 
fore such creatures as these, who, while holding offices of 
Justices of the Peace, are also Police Commissioners, and as 
such appoint men to protect these gamblers, and then on the 
other hand attempt to administer the law against the crimi- 
nals whom they appoint men to assist, I will not be party 
to any such outrage. 

" It must be apparent to you that such creatures are not 
qualified to administer justice against those whom they are 
thus protecting while these laws are openly violated, and 
were violated during the month of June, as you know, and 
have been violated during the month of September, and you 
know it ; and you know that the business is so openly con- 
ducted and the laws so openly violated that you cannot 
walk by there without seeing it. The paraphernalia there 
now is the same which was used in June, which you then 
would not allow to be seized, and I called your attention to 
the Code where it says, ' It is the duty of the officials to seize 
it.' " 

I also said further : — 

" It is reported that the reason that these men are not 
brought to trial is because they have paid large amounts of 
money. It is further charged that they have paid $2500 a 
month at Brighton Beach and $18,000 atSheepshead Bay, for 
this fall season, not (o be interfered with. I have secured 
the evidence and have the affidavits drawn, and bring the 



II2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

responsibility to you as prosecuting attorney and place it at 
your door." 

" Well," he said, " I propose to do my duty." 
We then made a formal demand upon Mr. Ridgway to 
have the cases brought before the Grand Jury, or that he 
should send one of his assistants with me before any reputa- 
ble judge in Kings County who had the authority and juris- 
diction in these cases. 

I told Mr. Ridgway that I would hold the witnesses at my 
office subject to his orders, and did so keep them there all 
that day, Mr. Ridgway's oath to the contrary notwithstanding. 

REASONS WHY WE WOULD NOT GO TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES 
OF GRAVESEND. 

Aside from reasons already given, John Y. McKane and 
eight of his subordinates were under indictment upon our 
complaints for aiding gamblers and violating Sec. 349, Penal 
Code. 

They were hostile to us and friendly to the gamblers. 

McKane had brazenly defied law, oath of office, and public 
sentiment by his public announcements, if what the papers 
said was true, as to what he would and would not do con- 
cerning gambling on the race courses at Gravesend. 

April 22, 1884, in an interview had with John Y. McKane, 
published in the New York World, the following occurs : 

" What will you do about pool-selling on the race tracks ? " 

McKane — " I don't propose to interfere with the pool-sell- 
ing at Brighton Beach or Sheepshead Bay." 

The Brooklyn Union of the same date prints an interview 
with Mr. McKane as follows : 

Reporter — "Well, don't you suppose they will have pool- 
selling on the race tracks ? What will you do with them ? " 

McKane — " I don't propose to interfere with Brighton 
Beach or the Jockey Club at Sheepshead Bay." 



JOHN Y. McKANE SCORED. lx ^ 

These statements have never been denied, so far as I can 
learn. 

The following is what the Bacon Investigating committee 
said of and recommended concerning Mr. John Y. McKane : 

" He himself testified that one man detailed by him to stop public pool- 
selling on a race track might do it. The mere presence of the Sheriff on 
the Brighton Beach track stopped the gambling there completely for the 
day of his visit and for the next three racing days. As to this form of 
gambling Mr. McKane stated to us his position even more emphatically 
than he had done as to the gross and vile offences perpetrated on Coney 
Island. He held that no certainty on his part that the law was being 
violated required him, Chief of Police though he was, to interfere to 
maintain the law; that he should refuse to put the machinery of the law 
in motion or to move himself, unless upon specific and formal complaints 
brought to him and pressed upon him, and that even when he visited the 
places where the law was being violated he should carefully refrain from 
any general interference with the violation of the law which was taking 
place before his very eyes, and should merely arrest the particular per- 
sons against whom he had formal complaints. Such has been and is 
Mr McKane's position, in spite of the explicit command of the law, of 
which he was a sworn and responsible officer. Mr. McKane's conduct 
has been that of an enemy, and not a friend, of the administration of 
justice. He has flagrantly and intentionally violated the law. What- 
ever may have been his motive, this conduct should lead in his prompt 
prosecution and removal from office. It is impossible, however, to re- 
sist the conclusion that for his open, prolonged and loyal assent to the 
continuance of these criminal practices, there was some direct motive to 
a person of Mr McKane's ability, vigor, industry and thrift. It was 
proved that these practices brought to those engaged in them an enor. 
mous money revenue. Mr. McKane admitted that he received from 
them large sums of money, which he says, indeed, were for work done 
by him as a builder, partly, as will be remembered, in constructing the 
very apparatus necessary to the perpetration of crime. But surely a 
chief of police who assents to the commission of crime, after he has re- 
ceived money from those who practise it, can hardly complain if the pub- 
lic decline to be content with his bare statement that his employment to 
do work and his receipt of money had no relation to the indulgence and 
the immunity which he extended to those from whom he, received the 
money. 

" The committee recommends the immediate indictment and the prompt 
8 



j!4 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

prosecution of John Y. McKane, in order that, if convicted, he may not 
only be punished, but be removed from the offices whose trust he has so 
completely betrayed. 

The following is a list of offices filled in Gravesend by 
Messrs. McKane, Waring & Co. 

TOWN OF GRAVESEND. 



Member of Assembly. 
R. V. B. Newton, D. 



TOWN OFFICIALS. 

Supervisor. 

JOHN Y. McKANE, W 



Justices of the Peace. 
Jacques S. Stryker, R. 
Anthony Waring, D. 
John McMahon, D. 
R. V. B. Newton, D. 



Board of Police Commissioners. 
JOHN Y. McKANE, Supervisor, D. 
Jacques S. Stryker, Justice of the Peace, R. 
Anthony Waring, " " " D. 

John McMahon, " " " D. 

R. V. B. Newton, " " " D. 



Board of Health. 
JOHN Y. McKANE, Supervisor, D. 
Jacques S. Stryker, Justice of the Peace, R. 
Anthony Waring, " " " D. 

* Superintendent Sunday School M. E. Church. 



TOWN OFFICIALS OF GRAVESEND. 

John McMahon, Justice of the Peace, D. 
R. V. B. Newton, " " " D. 

S. Stryker Williamson, Citizen Member, D. 
John L. Voorhies, Town Clerk, D. 



115 



Town Board. 
JOHN Y. McKANE, Supervisor, D. 
Jacques S. Stryker, Justice of the Peace, R. 
Anthony Waring, " " " D. 

John McMahon, " ' ; " D. 

R. V. B. Newton, " " " D. 

John L. Voorhies, Town Clerk, D. 



Board of Town Auditors. 
JOHN Y. McKANE.. Supervisor, D. 
Jacques S. Stryker, Justice of the Peace, R. 
Anthony Waring, " " " D. 

John McMahon, " " " D. 

R. V. B. Newton, " " " D. 

John L. Voorhies, Town Clerk, D. 
Or any two of the said Justices of the Peace (see Chap. 
305, Laws 1840, Sec. 1). 

Chairman, pro tern., Board of Supervisors, Kings County. 
JOHN Y. McKANE, D. 

Who appoints all the Committees of the Board, by virtue 
of his office. 
D. — Democrat. 
R. — Republican. 

That the public may be advised of the character of some 
of the men whose duty it was to enforce the laws against 
gambling, and before whom, as Justices of the Peace, we 
were expected to appear, I present extracts from the printed 



j J 6 GAMBLING O UTRA GES. 

reports of the testimony of Anthony Warring, Justice of the 
Peace and Police Commissioner of Gravesend, as given be- 
fore the Bacon Investigating Committee, as follows : 

By Mr. W. W. Goodrich— 

Q. Do you consider it a part of your duty, as a member of 
the Police Department, to sit until somebody comes and 
makes a complaint before you ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you never take any steps ? 

A. I never take any steps to look up crime. 

Q. And you mean to convey the impression that you could 
be on a race track often, weekly, for three years, and never 
know that gambling was going on ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you swear that was a fact ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With your knowledge and experience on race courses 
you had no reason to believe, you saw nothing which indi- 
cated to your mind, that gambling was going on on these 
race courses ? 

A. I did not, sir. 

Mr. Goodrich sat down, disgusted with the effrontery of 
this swearing official. Whereupon Mr. Parsons, the senior 
counsel, took him in hand. 

By Mr. Parsons : Q. I wish to satisfy my curiosity on one 
point. Do you know what a booth is ? 

A. I do not, sir. 

Q. Mr. Warring, we will begin at the beginning. Did you 
ever hear the term " pool," or " pool-selling," or see it in the 
newspapers ? 

A. I can't say positively; I may have seen it — I can't say 
positively. I have heard a great deal of it since this inves- 
tigation began. 

Q. Prior to this investigation did you ever see it in print 
or hear the expression ? 



LYING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. nj 

A. I might have seen or heard it. 

Q. Is that the strongest statement you can make upon 
that — you might have seen or heard it ? 

A. It is. 

Q. Have you any idea of the meaning of pool-selling? 

A. I have not. 

Q. Do you know whether it has anything to do with a 
Sunday-school, a public school, or a church, or the meeting 
of the Board of Aldermen, or proceedings in a court, or 
what ? 

A. I don't know anything about it. 

Q. Does it not associate itself in your mind with any- 
thing else ? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Warring, do you appreciate that this testimony 
which you are giving is under oath ? 

A. I do, certainly. 

This lying wretch then thought he was through, and 
was about to leave the stand, when Mr. Goodrich again 
turned the crank, and the following swearing to order ap- 
peared : 

Q. Did you have any business connection with either of the 
race tracks at any time in 1882 or 1883 ? 

A. In 1882 I was on the race tracks. 

Q. Which race track were you on ? 

A. On the Brighton. 

Q. What position did you hold in connection with that 
club? 

A. I was cashier. 

Q. How long were you there ? 

A. 1881 and 1882. 

Q. And you still mean to give the impression that, although 
you were four months cashier of a restaurant under the Grand 
Stand of the race track in 1882, you do not know what pool- 
selling is ? 



x ! g GA MB LING O UTRA GES. 

A. I do not know what pool-selling is. 

At the next session of the Committee Warring brought in 
his docket as a Justice of the Peace. It contained eighteen 
cases against persons who had been arrested during his term 
of Justice, from 1883 to present date, for violation of gam- 
bling laws. Every case but one had been " discharged," 
" John Y. McKane, complainant." One case was docketed, 
" Gambling, arraigned and settled." 

One out of the entire number pleaded "guilty," and sen- 
tence was suspended. Not one was held for the action of 
the Grand Jury. 

Mr. Parsons again put in the probe. Turning to page 81 
of Warring's docket, to the case of " People vs. John Mat- 
thews," and showing it to Warring, he said : 

Q. The question is whose hand-writing it is. 

A. It is my hand-writing. 

Q. Is all the entry in your hand-writing? 

A. I think every entry in it is my hand-writing, sir. 

Q. What, in that entry, have you stated as the offence for 
which he was brought before you ? 

A. Stated as " selling pools " ; that is the charge. 

And so they went through the docket, showing case after 
case where the same or similar entry was made by him. 
Then the counsel took up some of the complaints, also 
drawn by Warring, in his own hand-writing, and handing the 
same to this brazen creature, had him read the charge for 
like offences. 

Then these unmerciful inquirers kept at this elastic 
swearer until they proved from his own lips that he had 
actually purchased pools himself. They also drew out the 
interesting fact that the very day he was first subpoenaed to 
appear before the Committee he spent the afternoon with 
Battersby, Engeman & Co., at the Brighton Beach race 
course, Clifton, N. J., while racing and pool-selling were go- 
ing on. 



REPORT ON ANTHONY WARING. j T g 

Subsequently witnesses appeared before the Committee 
and swore positively to seeing Warring, while Justice of the 
Peace and Police Commissioner, hob-nobbing with gamblers 
and purchasing pools, etc. 

In the official report, adopted by the assembly, May 10, 
1887, we find, these words : 

" Mr? McKane's four associates upon the Police Board and the other 
four boards of Gravesend deserve severe censure for their acquiescence 
in the course taken by their chief. To only one of them is it, however, 
practicable to here specially refer. Anthony Waring is a justice of the 
peace, having his office on Coney Island itself, and as such he is the 
most important magistrate in a neighborhood in which criminal practices 
are so prevalent and so offensive and dangerous to the multitudes seek- 
ing health and recreation at the seashore. He is one of the Board of 
Police, but when asked as to his performance of official duty he testified, 
" I never take any steps to look up crime." This testimony needs, how- 
ever, to be qualified. Mr. Waring could perhaps have said with truth 
that he never looked up crime to punish it; but that he looked up crime 
to engage in it was abundantly proved. He himself participated in the 
criminal practices to which we have referred and which it was his sworn 
and special duty to punish. And in the immediate presence of this com- 
mittee Mr. Waring committed what we believe to be a serious offence, 
for which he should be punished. He testified in a variety of forms, and 
after being cautioned as to the significance of what he was saying, that 
he had no idea of the meaning of pool-selling ; that pool-selling did not 
associate itself in his mind with anything else ; that he did not know 
what pool-selling was. He admitted that in 1882, after being a school- 
teacher, he was cashier at a restaurant directly under the grand stand on 
the Brighton Beach racing track, where, as was proved, pool-selling was 
openly and notoriously carried on to an enormous extent. It appeared 
that Mr. Waring has since been active in the affairs of Gravesend, among 
whose most conspicuous features have been its racing tracks and the 
pool-selling and gambling there carried on ; that as a police commissioner 
and justice of the peace he has had exceptionally good means of infor- 
mation ; that before him as justice of the peace, John Y. McKane prose- 
cuted in September and October, 1883, three different defendants, 
Matthews, Crosby and Miller, all for " selling pools," the cases being at 
last dismissed because the prosecutor did not appear in either case, and 
the entries, including the description of the charge, all being in Mr. War- 
ing's handwriting; that he had read Section 351 of the Penal Code with 



I2 o GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

reference to pool-selling ; that when he was subpoenaed as a witness he 
was on his way to Clifton, N. J., a race track of Messrs. A. H. Battersby 
and George H. Engeman, two of the proprietors of the Brighton Beach 
racing track, gentlemen both of whom are under indictment for pool-sell- 
ing, and that at their race track at Clifton he had himself bought in a 
pool. Mr. Waring's position as a Police Commissioner and as the Jus- 
tice of the Peace at Coney Island made material to our inquiry, as he 
perfectly well knew, his knowledge of pool-selling. To shield himself 
from a charge of official dereliction he swore repeatedly to entire igno- 
rance of a matter of which he was proved to have actual knowledge and 
the amplest means of knowledge. In our opinion he committed deliber- 
ate, wilful perjury. Doubtless other witnesses before us, beside Mr. 
Waring, saw fit to testify to an ignorance of matters which no one doubts 
they must have known. But this case of a judicial and executive officer 
is peculiarly flagrant. It will be a disgraceful failure of justice at the 
very fountain seat of justice if Mr. Waring be longer permitted to hold 
his offices in Gravesend. We recommend to the Grand Jury of Kings 
County an examination of the facts to which we have referred and which 
are easy to prove ; and, if the facts be as we have learned them to be, we 
recommend the immediate indictment and vigorous prosecution of Mr. 
Waring for perjury, and to the Supreme Court a proper proceeding to 
remove him from his office of justice of the peace." 

This is one of the authorities of Gravesend to whom it 
was expected, in the natural order of events, we were to ap- 
ply to enforce the laws against gamblers. 

What is the difference between an official who swears to 
discharge a certain duty, and does not do it, and a witness 
who swears upon the witness stand to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, and does not do it ? Are 
not both morally guilty of perjury ? Should not such a crime 
receive the execration of every honest person ? 

What! apply to a man to arrest himself or seize his own 
interests ! Bah ! 

Turning now to the cases in hand, Mr. Ridgway has never 
subpoz?iaed a single one of these witnesses before any Court, 
Grand Jury, or Magistrate, nor has he taken any steps, so 
far as we can ascertain, to bring these men to justice in any 
manner or form on these complaints. It was not until July 



LETTER TO GRAND JURY. l2 \ 

1 6, 1886, nearly two years afterwards, when an appeal was 
made directly to the Grand Jury by a letter to the foreman, 
that we could get these cases into court at all. Then it was 
that the writer demanded of the Grand Jury the indictment 
of James W. Ridgway for violation of Section 349 of the 
Penal Code, in not " informing against and prosecuting " 
these defendants. This resulted in the indictment of the 
seventeen gamblers against whom evidence was secured in 
September, 1884, these being the cases referred to in the 
letters of September 18 and 19, 1884, to Mr. Ridgway. 

The letter to the Grand Jury was as follows, and I pre- 
sent it in this connection because it is a part of this history. 
It shows our fidelity, and answers gross misstatements made 
concerning it by Mr. Ridgway in his remarkable answer to 
the charges preferred against him to the Governor of the 
State, referred to above. 

Office of the New York Society for the Sup- 
pression of Vice, No. 150 Nassau St. 

New York, July 16, 1886. 
Mr. Henry F. Van Lovan, 

Foreman of the Grand Jury, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Dear Sir : — 

I beg to call the attention of the Grand Jury to the fact that the laws 
against pool gambling, in Kings County, are constantly being violated ; 
that during the past three years men continue to keep public places on 
the Sheepshead Bay race track and on the race track of the Brighton 
Beach Association, with paraphernalia for recording bets and wagers, and 
continue to record bets and wagers, in violation of the law, all action of 
the court to the contrary. 

That last month agents of this Society went to the race iracks and 
procured evidence against Samuel Emery and two of his assistants, and 
a report was made to the District Attorney. I have this day sent him a 
full and detailed account of the transaction, with the names of the wit- 
nesses, and I respectfully ask that this matter may be brought before the 
Grand Jury, and these men indicted. 



I2 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

I beg to present, for the information of the Grand Jury, that during 
the months of June and September of each year, at Sheepshead Bay 
race track, the laws are openly violated. In 1884 the Grand Jury, in 
June, found indictments against twenty-two gamblers. Among them 
were such notorious gamblers as James E. Kelly, Michael Murray, David 
J. Johnson, Albert H. Cridge, John McDougall, Daniel Gleason, John 
S. Stow, William Warring, William McNamara, Daniel Wartzfelder, 
James Varley, F. K. Bradley, and T. J. Meehan. None of these men 
were arrested until after the indictments were found by the Grand Jury, 
and none of them were allowed to be arrested, but the bench warrants 
that were issued remained unexecuted, while the officers from the Dis- 
trict Attorney's office went to the gamblers' booths, while they were act- 
ually violating the law, and instead of arresting the men that the bench 
warrants called for, notified them, while they were actually violating the 
law, to appear the next morning (at a time when it would not interfere 
with their unlawful business) and give bail. And this, I am informed, 
was done by order of the District Attorney of Kings County. 

The June season closed on the 1st of July. The men gave bail in the 
morning and returned to their unlawful business in the afternoon. The 
indictments were filed on June 30, but before these indictments were filed 
some one, evidently, had informed the gamblers, as the following per- 
sons were awaiting to give bail, and did give bail, on the 30th of June, 
1884, to wit : Michael Murray, John McDougall, James E. Kelly, 
Thomas Murray, John S. Stow, Herman Snyder, Mark Jordan, James 
Dunn, David J. Johnson, and Albert H. Cridge. Officers were sent 
down with the bench warrants to arrest the other parties, who did not 
appear in the morning, and found the persons who had given bail in 
the morning, with the other parties, in their booths openly violating 
the law 

In September, 1884, the persons first named in this letter were found 
openly violating the same law for which they had been indicted. Com- 
plaints were made and presented to the District Attorney of Kings 
County, by myself in person, with the names of the witnesses and the 
positive evidence of the guilt of these men, and not one of those wit- 
nesses has ever been called or examined by any Grand Jury. 

In June, 1885, the same set of gamblers again appeared in the same 
places at Sheepshead Bay. Again the agents of this Society procured the 
evidence, and Michael Murray was indicted and arrested. The business 
continued right on, and has continued on, from .that time down to the 
present time, during each season of June and September, 1885, and June, 
1886, and yet Murray has not been tried. 

Michael Murray was convicted in New York City in 1884 for a simi- 



LETTER TO GRAND JURY. 1 23 

lar offence ; indeed, he was in court in New York in the morning, and he 
was found violating the same law in Kings County the same afternoon, 
and upon this evidence was indicted. Upon his demurrer a judgment 
of conviction was entered upon this indictment, and an appeal was taken 
by him to the General Term of the Supreme Court. The General Term 
in May, 1885, affirmed the judgment of conviction. That order of af- 
firmance was entered in the County Clerk's office, June 8, 1885, against 
Michael Murray and the following other gamblers ; to wit : James E. 
Kelly, John S. Stow, Thomas Murray, John Kelly, John McDougall, 
alias Dougal McDougall, David J. Johnson, Albert H. Cridge, Martin 
Jordan, and James Dunn. Notwithstanding this unanimous affirmance 
of Judgment of conviction in the above cases, neither of these cases 
has been sentenced, nor has there been, so far as I have been able to 
find, from a personal examination made a few weeks ago in the office of 
the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, any appeal perfected in this case. 

Michael Murray has not been tried upon the indictment found subse- 
quently to the affirmance by the Supreme Court. This gambling has 
been permitted to go right on without interruption. Officers who go 
there with warrants do not seize the paraphernalia. Gamblers are no- 
tified as soon as the officers who have the warrants leave the track, and 
they then open up their business and carry it on. 

Last year men were sworn in as special policemen and deputy sheriffs, 
and in the garb of a "peace officer" guarded these gamblers while the 
law was openly violated by preserving the peace for them. If 
the daily papers are to be believed, the Brighton Beach races are run- 
ning constantly while the law is being violated. Men who have been 
indicted and convicted are unsentenced. Men who have been indicted 
repeatedly are untried, and yet the violations of law go right on openly. 
I therefore appeal directly to the Grand Jury, because I am satisfied 
that it is not the intent or purpose of the District Attorney of Kings 
County to enforce these laws. 

I am informed by rumor that he proposes, in some way or other, to 
have the Grand Jury indict me. I beg to say that if there are any 
charges made against me or my officers, we ask to be heard, and 
that no hostile element be permitted to enter the Grand Jury room 
against those who have earnestly, faithfully, and truly, year after year, 
persistently endeavored to secure the proper enforcement of the law 
against these notorious crimes. 

Conscious of our integrity, we confidently appeal to any Grand In- 
quest to investigate our action and our conduct, and I am frank to say 
to you that I am ready to go before that body and lay all the facts with- 



I2 a GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

out reserve before you, in reference to any act committed by myself or 
my assistants. 

These are extraordinary times. Despite all the efforts of good men 
to enforce these laws, the same are openly violated, while thousands of 
dollars are going into the hands of unscrupulous gamblers ; and the 
courts, . thus far, have been unable to cope with the evil or to sup- 
press it. 

Unless the Grand Jury will make some decided effort, there is no 
prospect for the public but to expect that in September, at the fall 
meeting of the Coney Island Jockey Club at Sheepshead Bay, the same 
disgraceful scenes will be re-enacted as were enacted during the month 
of June by gamblers openly violating the law of this State. 

As a law-abiding citizen, as a representative of this organization, as an 
individual who has earnestly and faithfully endeavored to enforce these 
laws, I appeal to this Grand Inquest to examine into the facts, and to 
relieve Kings County from the odium that now is attached to it. 

Very truly yours, 

Anthony Comstock, 
Secretary. 

Did Mr. Ridgway know of the lawless character of these 
men ? In addition to the above letters, another letter was 
sent him in November of the same year which revealed to 
him the standing of at least six of those of whom he was so 
tender. 

After the matter had been referred to Governor Cleveland, 
a notice was sent out to the effect that some of these men 
were to be tried at once. 

In order that Mr. Ridgway should have the facts before 
him that six of those indicted were old offenders, and had 
previously been convicted and sentenced, the following letter 
was sent : 

LETTER TO MR. RIDGWAY OF NOVEMBER 1 7, 1884. 

Hon. James W. Ridgway, 

District Attorney, 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Sir : — I respectfully call your attention to the following facts, to wit : 
James E. Kelly, John S. Stow and Thomas Murray, on the 16th day of 



DID MR. RIDG WA Y KNO W? ! 2 5 

June, each pleaded guilty in the Special Sessions Court, New York City ? 
to violating Section 351 of the Penal Code, and each was sentenced in 
said court for such offences, the said Kelly being fined $100, and said 
Stow and Murray each fined $10. 

That on the 1st day of October, 1884, Michael Murray, Daniel Wartz- 
felder, and James Varley each pleaded guilty to complaints charging the 
same offences as aforesaid in the same court, and the said Murray was 
fined $100, and each of the other defendants was fined $25. 

These offences were committed in the county of New York and were 
for violating the same statute for which each of the above 'named are 
indicted in the Kings County Court of Sessions and about to be tried, 
and I certify to these facts in order that you may present the same to the 
Court, should any of the parties be convicted and arraigned for sentence. 
Respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

Mr. Ridgway now swears he never knew that any of these 
gamblers were old offenders. 

In this connection it will be of interest to note that, 
although after waiting nearly two years we secured their 
indictment in 1886, we have not yet been able to have some 
of these men apprehended by due process of law upon these 
last indictments. 

Five of those men, who have not yet been arrested, are 
already under bail upon the June, 1884, indictments, and 
their bail-bonds could have been called at any instance and 
they brought into court. Instead, however, notwithstanding 
a personal appeal made in November, 1886, to both Mr. 
Ridgway and Sheriff Farley, none of these men have yet 
been apprehended. 

The following letter to Mr. Ridgway was delivered to him 
personally by Mr. Oram, to wit : 

November 8, 1S86. 

James W. Ridgway, Esq., 

District Attorney Kings County, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Sir :— I beg to call your attention to the fact that the following parties 
indicted June 23, 1886, and for whom bench warrants are out for their 



I2 5 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

arrest, have not yet been arrested, to wit : Daniel Wartzfelder, James 
Varley, James Dunn, William Warring, and William McNamara. 

These parties are under bonds on previous indictments in the Ses- 
sions Court. 

Will you kindly have these cases called in court on the other cases, so 
that the Sheriff can execute the bench warrants ? 

The following parties also have not been arrested of those indicted July 
23, 1886, to wit: Edward Ross, John Clark, John Doe, Solomon 
Doe, and Horatio Doe. My assistant will go at any time with one 
of your officers, or with any of the Sheriff's officers who may have these 
bench warrants, and identify these men if they can be found. 

This office will most cheerfully co-operate at any time in securing 
these men and in bringing these criminals to justice. 
Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 



The same day Mr. Oram delivered at Sheriff Farley's 
office the following letter : 

November 8, 1886. 

Charles B. Farley, Esq., 

Sheriff Kings County, 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Sir : — I beg to call your attention to the fact that the following parties, 
indicted July 23, 1886, and for whom I am informed there are bench 
warrants now in your possession for their arrest, are the same as are 
now under bail in the Sessions Court on indictments filed June 30. 
1884. The offences for which these parties were indicted under the last 
indictments of July 23, 1886, are for subsequent offences. 

The names of the parties not yet arrested are as follows : Daniel 
Wartzfelder, James Varley, James Dunn, William Warring, and William 
McNamara. 

Edward Ross, John Clark, John Doe, Solomon Doe, and Horatio Doe 
have not been arrested at all, and whenever it shall be convenient for 
you to send an officer with the bench warrants for the arrest of these 
parties to this office, I will be very happy to detail one of my men to 
go with him to identify the parties to him. 

Some of these men reside in the city of New York, and I have no 



GAMBLERS NOT ARRESTED. 



27 



doubt can be found. The men who have given bail, I think you will 
find their residences jiven upon the bail-bonds. 

Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

Does not this continued protection of these five prominent 
gamblers lend force to the consoling words of James E. 
Kelly of June 30, 1884, that " the Grand Jury will adjourn 
and these indictments will be pigeon-holed," etc.? 

Is not this persistency not to call these gamblers into 
court, nor to arrest them, on the part of the prosecuting 
attorney and Sheriff a circumstance which justifies the be- 
lief that there was a contract of protection made with the 
gamblers ? If there was no contract, why should these 
gamblers be protected ? If there was a contract, has it not 
been faithfully carried out on the part of the Kings County 
officials ? 

Contract or no contract, are not these facts outrages upon 
every sentiment of morality, justice, and law ? 



I2 g GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

AN APPEAL TO GOVERNOR CLEVELAND, 

Now go back in order to have the record concise. Mr. 
Ridgway had failed to bring the men indicted under their 
right names July 23, 1884, into court to plead to these sec- 
ond indictments. It will be remembered that the most of 
them were in court July 8, 1884, to plead to the first indict- 
ment, but all but ten remained mute. 

Mr. Ridgway would not subpoena any of the witnesses 
against the (17) seventeen gamblers complained of to him in 
our letter of September 18, 1884, before any Court or Grand 
Jury. He did not interfere in any manner or form with 
these public crimes, although the evidence, witnesses, and 
complaints were all subject to his order. 

The eleven demurrers were undecided, and nothing practi- 
cally had been done to stop these crimes or punish these 
notorious criminals. Then it was we appealed to the Gov- 
ernor. 

It was not until after the Executive Committee of the 
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice had in No- 
vember, 1884, made a written report to Governor Cleveland, 
calling attention to these facts, and a demand was made that 
action should be taken against Mr. Ridgway for the non-en- 
forcement of law, that definite action was taken in these 
cases. 

With a wholesome fear of Governor Cleveland, after- 
wards, December 1, 1884, those indicted June 30 and July 23, 
1884, were called into court, before Judge Moore, when the 
demurs entered July 8, 1884, were overruled, and the de- 



JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION. i 2 g 

fendants refusing to plead, judgment of conviction was 
entered against them as follows, to wit : — James E. Kelly, 
Thomas Murray, John S. Stow, Michael Murray, David 
Johnson, John Kelly, John T. McDougall, indicted as Dougal 
McDougall, Mark Jordan, Albert H. Cridge, and James 
Dunn, — the latter on two .indictments. 

The following persons also appeared on this date and en- 
tered the same demurrer to the indictments as had been 
entered on the foregoing indictments. Among these were 
Daniel Wartzfelder, James Varley, F. K. Bradley, T. J. 
Meehan, Daniel Gleason, William Warring and William Mc- 
Namara. Frank Rodman failed to appear, while James Fry 
and the innocent Dougal McDougall pleaded " not guilty." 

A STAY GRANTED. 

A stay of proceedings was granted by Judge Pratt, De- 
cember 3, 1884, in the eleven cases where judgment of con- 
viction had been entered, pending an appeal to the General 
Term of the Supreme Court. 

What was done in reference to these cases on appeal ? 

The General Term of the Supreme Court at Poughkeepsie, 
May n, 1885, by a unanimous decision, sustained the judg- 
ment of conviction in all these cases. The following is 
a copy of the order of affirmance in one case, which will il- 
lustrate all : 

" At a general term of the New York Supreme Court, held in and for 
the Second Department, at the Court House in the city of Poughkeepsie 
on the eleventh day of May, 1885, Present,— Hon. Joseph F. Barnard, 
P. J. ; Hon. Jackson O. Dykeman, Hon. Calvin E. Pratt, J.— The peo. 
pie of the State of New York, respondents, vs. James E. Kelly, Thomas 
Murray, and John S. Stow, appellants. 

" The appeal therein having been brought on for argument, after hear- 
ing William C. De Witt, Esq., of counsel for the appellants, on their be- 
half, and James W. Ridgway, District Attorney of Kings County, for the 
respondents, in their behalf, and due deliberation thereon having been 
9 



j.q GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

had, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of conviction 
therein rendered by the Court of Sessions of the County of Kings on the 
ist day of December, 1884, against the appellants, from which this ap- 
peal was taken, be, and the same hereby is, in all respects affirmed." 

(Signed by the Clerk.) 

The orders of affirmance in these cases were filed in the 
County Clerk's office of Kings County, June 8, 1885. 

GAMBLERS CONTINUED TO PLY THETR TRADE. 

A few days afterwards the agents of the New York So- 
ciety for the Suppression of Vice found the law being 
openly violated at Brighton Beach and at the Sheepshead 
Bay race track the same as before. We secured the evi- 
dence, and the Grand Jury, June 25, 1885, indicted the fol- 
lowing parties on our complaints, to wit : Michael Murray 
and two assistants, Thomas Brown and three assistants, 
Edward Ross and Charles Clifton and their assistants. 

Murray, Brown, and Clifton gave bail and returned to 
business. One other gambler died before arrest. Through- 
out the summer and fall seasons of 1885 these crimes con- 
tinued. " Big Mike " Murray was not called for sentence, 
nor has he, even to this date, been tried upon this new in- 
dictment. In not one of the above cases have the witnesses 
ever been subpoenaed for trial. 

June, 1886, the season of the Coney Island Jockey Club 
a°-ain opened. Gamblers resumed business under the " pro- 
tection combine " of Kings County officials. Again our 
agents secured the evidence of their crimes, and by pressing 
the matter before the Grand Jury, June, 1886, had the fol- 
lowing gamblers and jockey clubs indicted, to wit : — The 
Coney Island Jockey Club, the Brighton Beach Racing 
Association, David J. Johnson, Joseph Cotton, Arthur 
Hackett, J. E. McDonald, Henry Stedeker, Herman Traub, 
and several others. 



NO TICE OF APPEAL. j 3 1 

The "flagrant, persistent, and open " violation of law con- 
tinued ; and yet none of those against whom judgment of 
conviction had been entered Dec. 1, 1884, have been sen- 
tenced. Not a subsequent indictment has ever been tried. 
No action has been taken against the seventeen complained of 
by our letter of Sept. 18, 1884, to Mr. Ridgway. 

We decided to carry the war into Africa. Accordingly the 
foregoing letter was sent to Mr. Van Lovan, the foreman of 
the July Grand Jury. 

This letter shows how we blackmail gamblers and fur- 
nish protection to them. We moved upon the enemy's 
works all along the line, and our efforts were valiantly sup- 
ported by this Grand Inquest. 

Going back a little to pick up a single thread of history, 
the reader will find after " Big Mike " Murray and his asso-" 
ciate gamblers had been indicted, June, 1885, that, July 3, 
1885, a 

FORMAL NOTICE OF APPEAL 

was filed in the County Clerk's office of Kings County in all 
the eleven cases where the General Term had affirmed the 
judgment of conviction. One case will illustrate all, to wit : 

" Court of Sessions, Kings County. — The people, respondents, 
against James E. Kelly, Thomas Murray, and John S. Stow, appellants. 
'•' Please take notice that the above-named defendants hereby appeal 
to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of the General Term of the 
Supreme Court affirming the judgment of conviction rendered by the 
Court of Sessions of the County of Kings, on the 1st clay of December, 
1884, against the appellants, entered herein on the 3rd day of July, 1885, 
and from each and every part thereof. 
" Dated, July 3, 1885. 

u Yours, etc., 

" William C. De Witt, 
"Jerry Wernberg, 

" Attorneys for Appellants. 
" To Hon. James W. Ridgway, District Attorney, 

" Rodney Thursby, Clerk.'* 



132 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



In reference to the time of perfecting an appeal from the 
General Term to the Court of Appeals, note the provisions 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows : 

" Section 521. Must be taken within one year after judgment. 
An appeal must be taken within one year after the judgment was ren- 
dered." 

In reference to the " Transmitting of the papers to the 
Appellate Court," Section 532 provides as follows : — 

" Upon an appeal being taken, the clerk, with whom the notice of ap- 
peal is filed, must, within ten days thereafter, without charge, transmit a 
copy of the notice of appeal and of the judgment roll, as foil ows : . . . . 
If it be to the Court of Appeals, to the clerk of that court." 

Criminal causes have precedence over all others in all Appellate Courts. 

Section 534 then provides concerning the " Dismissal for 
Irregularity," as follows : — 

" Section 534. Dismissal for want of return. The court may 
also, upon like motion, dismiss the appeal, if the return be not made, as 
provided in section five hundred and thirty-two, unless for good cause 
they enlarge the time for that purpose." 

It will be found hereinafter that no stay was granted 
upon the order of affirmance of the General Term, Supreme 
Court, of May 11, 1885, until July 26, 1886, and that no re- 
turns had been made to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals 
up to the 19th day of March, 1887, if there has been any 
down to the present moment. 

The July Grand Jury were asked to indict Mr Ridgway 
for failing " to inform against or prosecute " seventeen 
gamblers complained of to him as openly violating the law* 
as named in our first letter to Mr. Ridgway of September 

* 18, 1884. Our witnesses were called, and as a result every 
one of the seventeen shielded and protected gamblers afore- 

• said was indicted. It took nearly two years of persistent 
warfare upon our part to secure any action against gamblers 



WHA T WAS D ONE ? j 3 , 

of whom it was charged, in September, 1884, that they had 
" fixed " everybody so that they would not be interfered with. 
Mr. Ridgway was called to a very strict account by the 
Grand Jury. He was greatly troubled, and it is claimed 
that, as a compromise, he promised to bring the eleven cases 
which the General Term had passed upon, as aforesaid 
(May 11, 1885), mt0 court for sentence. 

WHAT WAS DONE? 

A notice was served upon these parties July 26, while the 
Grand Jury was in session, for them to come to court for 
sentence July 27, 1886. Then more fine work was done. 
James E. Kelly said, according to the Brooklyn Union, 
June 30, 1884, " The indictments will be pigeon-holed," etc. 
Did he not know what he was talking about ? How easy 
it is to humbug the public, to find a legal technicality or 
cover for not enforcing the law ! How easy to manipulate 
and keep convicted criminals from being sentenced ! 

As will be seen, by reference to the Code and the forego- 
ing dates, more than " the year " allowed for perfecting 
these appeals had passed. During this entire period, from 
May 11, 1885, to July 27, 1886, or taking it from the date 
the order of affirmance was filed with the County Clerk, 
June 8, 1885, or even of the notice of appeal, July 3, 1885, 
more than a year had passed, and all that time no stay had 
been granted, so that these convicted criminals could 
have been sentenced at any time, yet not one has been 
sentenced. 

Instead, what? 

Mr. Jere Wernberg, counsel for these men, went to 
Poughkeepsie on the night train July 26, 1886, and, upon 
some stipulation by the prosecution, secured a stay of pro- 
ceedings for the purpose of carrying these cases to the 
Court of Appeals. 



j- 4 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

July 27, 1886, when the gamblers, who rumor claimed in 
June, 1884, were to be protected, and whom James E. Kelly 
(the one who it was claimed had made a contract for protec- 
tion) assured June 30, 1884, that " the indictments would be 
pigeon-holed," etc., were called for sentence, the follow- 
ing bit of strategy on their part to further secure these gam- 
blers from sentence was brought forward, to wit : 

a stay by judge barnard. 

New York Supreme Court. 

The People of the State of New York, 
vs. 

DOUGAL MCDOUGALL. 

City of Brooklyn, County of Kings, ss. 

I, Hon. Joseph F. Barnard, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court 
of the State of New York, do hereby certify that in my opinion there 
is reasonable doubt whether the judgment of conviction entered against 
the above named defendant in the Court of Sessions of County of Kings 
on the first day of December, 1884, on an indictment charging said de- 
fendant with registering and recording bets and wagers, and which judg- 
ment was affirmed by the General Term of the "Supreme Court, should 
stand. 

Dated/w/j/ 26, 1886. J. F. Barnard. 

[Seal] 

(Copy.) John M. Rankin, 

Clerk. 

The certified copy of this certificate of doubt also con- 
tained the titles of all the other ten cases against whom 
judgment of conviction was entered December 1, 1884. 

Afterwards, to wit, Aug. 20, 1886, the following letter was 
sent Judge Barnard. We felt that he had been imposed 
upon, and determined to undeceive him. We felt bound not 
only to inform him of the facts, but to appeal to him for 
relief. 



LE TTER TO JUSTICE BARNARD. j 3 5 

August 20, 1886. 
Honorable Joseph F. Barnard, 

Justice of the Supreme Court, 

Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 
Honorable and Dear Sir : — I beg most respectfully to ask your consider- 
ation of the following matter, which I submit strictly to secure the ends 
of justice, and to lay before your Honor certain facts which I cannot but 
feel you ought to know. 

I am informed that during the present month your Honor has issued 
a certificate of doubt so as to stay the proceedings in the matter of 
James E. Kelly and other gamblers, in which cases your Honor rendered 
a decision on behalf of the General Term of the Supreme Court May 
11, 1885. The facts are briefly as follows : 

June, 1884, the Grand Jury in and for the Sessions Court of the Coun- 
ty of Kings, in Brooklyn, found true bills of indictment against twenty- 
two (22) gamblers for violating Section 351 of the Penal Code. Nine- 
teen (19) of these gamblers demurred to their indictments, and the de- 
murrer being overruled, judgment of conviction was entered against 
them. An appeal was taken to the General Term of the Supreme Court 
in some eleven cases, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by 
your honorable Court on the nth day of May, 1885, in all these cases. 
The order of affirmance was filed in the County Clerk's office, of the 
County of Kings, June 8, 1885. A simple notice of appeal was filed 
in the County Clerk's office on the 3rd of July, 1885, but no appeal was 
taken other than this, and no judgment roll was filed with the Clerk of 
the Court of Appeals, nor were any papers sent to the Clerk of the Court 
of Appeals up to July, 1886, and more than a year passed before any ac- 
tion whatever was taken to perfect this appeal. And I am informed, and 
verily believe, that the present stay of proceedings is not asked of 
your Honor for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, but rather 
to ftlrther protect and screen gamblers who have all these years been 
permitted to go unwhipped of justice, while they have continued to 
openly transgress and violate the laws of the State of New York, in the 
County of Kings, by committing the same crimes for which they were 
indicted in June, 1884. The facts disclose a most disgraceful and 
shameful condition of affairs in that county. 

I now most respectfully ask permission to lay before your Honor the 
following history of these disgraceful proceedings : 

During the months of June and September of each year the Coney 
Island Jockey Club, at the town of Gravcsend, in the County of Kings, 
permit their premises to be occupied and used by gamblers, nearly all of 



i3 6 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



whom are non-residents of Kings County, and some non-residents of the 
State of New York, who come there and openly violate Section 351 of 
the Penal Code by selling pools and registering bets and wagers on 
horse races. In June, 1884, I secured evidence against twenty-two (22) of 
these gamblers. I drew the complaints according to due form of law. 
These complaints were taken to the District Attorney on the 23d of 
June, 1884. The District Attorney, Mr. Ridgway, promised absolutely 
to take up these matters on the 25th and personally bring them before 
the Grand Jury, advising against any.warrants to arrest or seize their un- 
lawful paraphernalia, and promising that the next morning after the 
Grand Jury should take action he would have bench warrants .and 
search warrants ready to arrest the parties who should be indicted and 
to seize their unlawful paraphernalia, which they then and there kept 
and publicly used in violation of law. 

On the 25th the witnesses, having been notified, were in attendance, 
but instead of being called, were allowed to wait the entire clay without 
being called. Mr. Ridgway did not appear at all, nor could he be 
found. On the 26th day of June, upon my earnest demand that the mat- 
ter be considered, one case was taken up out of the twenty-two (22) 
which we had prepared, and the witnesses were then instructed that they 
need not wait, as nothing more would be done that day. The witnesses 
did go away, but afterwards returned to the First Assistant District At- 
torney in charge of the Grand Jury, the same day, and demanded of him 
to promptly take these matters before the Grand Jury or we would go at 
once to the Governor of the State ; whereupon the witnesses were called 
at once, and all the twenty-two (22) gamblers were- indicted. Matters, 
however, were delayed, so that it was the 30th day of June, or the last 
day but one of the races for the June season of 1884, before the indict- 
ments were filed. 

When the indictments were filed it was found that eleven (n) of 
these gamblers had been notified, and were in waiting in the District At- 
torney's office with their bondsmen ready to give bail. Bench warrants 
were issued against the others, and I went to Mr. Ridgway for search 
warrants, as these men continued to boldly violate the law, not even 
being checked by the action of the Grand Jury. To my amazement and 
surprise, Mr. Ridgway, the District Attorney, informed me that no search 
warrants would be issued, and that the men who had been indicted would 
not be arrested ; but that one of Mr. Ridgway's officers would go down 
to the race track where these men were and would notify them to appear, 
if I would send one of the witnesses to identify the men indicted to the 
officer who held the bench warrants. I protested to Mr. Ridgway against 
this course of procedure, because it was irregular ; and I told him further, 



LETTER TO JUSTICE BARNARD. 



137 



as a reason why it ought not to be clone, that it was rumored and 
openly charged that the gamblers had paid $50,000 not to be arrested, 
and that* an agreement had been made — because of the payment of this 
money — that they should not be arrested nor interfered with during the 
racing season, and I urged these rumors and charges as a reason why 
these men ought to be arrested and their unlawful matter seized. In- 
stead, however, these men were not arrested, but an officer went down 
with a witness who could identify the indicted gamblers, and while the 
gamblers were openly violating the law and stood there with their para- 
phernalia for registering and recording bets and wagers in full and open 
view, the officer and the witness went from booth to booth, and as the 
witness pointed out the gambler, the gambler ceased his gambling oper- 
ations long enough to be notified by said officer that he had been in- 
dicted, the name under which he had been indicted, and for him to ap- 
pear the next morning and give bail. Their gambling paraphernalia was 
not seized ; their unlawful business was not interfered with other than as 
above ; and the men who had given bail in the morning, as mentioned 
above, were there with these other men, committing the same offence, 
the same afternoon, and have continued to violate the law since. 

In September, 1884, these same men having continued to violate the 
law, I sent three men down to the race track, and these three men 
secured positive and aosolute evidence against seventeen (17) gamblers, 
thirteen (13) of whom had been indicted in June previous. Complaints 
were drawn according to due form of law, the exhibits were attached, 
and Mr. Ridgway was notified by a letter, copy of which is enclosed and 
marked "Exhibit A," but no action was taken. 

In June, the next season, these same gamblers opened business, and 
we secured evidence against them, and by dint of great pressure had 
these parties indicted for the offences of June, 1885, but could not get 
the cases of September, 1884, acted upon. I may add here as a fact 
that the District Attorney has not, down to the present time, ever sub- 
poenaed one of these witnesses before any Court or Grand Jury in those 
cases of September, 1884 ; and it was not until July, 1886, just previous 
to their application for a stay to your Honor, when I preferred charges 
against James W. Ridgway, the District Attorney, to the Grand Jury, 
and demanded that these cases be taken up and acted upon, that these 
seventeen (17) cases, together with three others, were taken up by the 
Grand Jury and indictments were found against them. This, let it be 
remembered, was nearly two years after the crimes had been committed, 
and after Mr. Ridgway had been informed of these facts and furnished 
with the names of the defendants and the names of the witnesses. 

During the months of June and September of the years 1884, 18S5, 



138 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



and the month of June, 1886, gambling has been permitted to be carried 
on without let or hindrance by notorious professional gamblers in Kings 
County, not only upon the Coney Island Jockey Club race track at 
Sheepshead Bay, but also, as it is now being carried on, on the race 
course of the Brighton Beach Racing Association at Brighton Beach, 
both in the town of Gravesend, in the County of Kings. 

For years the newspapers have demanded the enforcement of these 
laws, and have published the facts concerning the scandalous and out- 
rageous proceedings in the courts and out of the courts in reference to 
these cases in that county. 

I present to your Honor the fact that while these men have been 
under judgment of conviction, and with no stay to prevent their being 
sentenced, they have not been called for sentence until I demanded the 
indictment of James W. Ridgway for non-performance of his duty, and 
for violating Section 349 of the Penal Code, in that he, having reason to 
believe that that Section was being violated, has not informed against or 
prosecuted the men who he knew were violating the law. 

It will thus be observed that professional gamblers indicted in June, 
1884, have continued to violate the law ever since ; that though subse- 
quently complained of to the District Attorney, he would not permit any 
proceedings to be taken, nor has he subpoenaed a single witness before any 
Court or Grand Jury against these gamblers whom he had reason to 
believe were continuing to violate the law in September, after the Grand 
Jury had indicted them in June, 1884. 

Again, it must be observed that indictments found against these same 
gamblers in June, 1885, have not one of them been tried in the Sessions 
Court. 

Again, after the General Term of the Supreme Court had affirmed the 
conviction, and more than a year has elapsed since that order was filed 
in the County Clerk's office of the County of Kings, these men have re- 
mained unsentenced; nor am I aware of a single instance where any 
motion has been made to have them sentenced except as aforesaid, nor 
had there been any papers filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals 
in these cases up to July, 1886. In July, 1886, I demanded the indict- 
ment of James W. Ridgway, the District Attorney, for violation of Sec- 
tion 349, of the Penal Code, and for protecting and shielding the gam- 
blers and preventing* the enforcement of the law while they openly and 
scandalously violated it. After the year to which by law they are entitled 
to perfect their appeal has passed, now they appeal to your Honor, I 
know not upon what grounds, for a certificate of doubt in order that 
these men may go unwhipped of justice, their business be not interfered 



LETTER TO JUSTICE BARNARD. T $g 

with, while they transgress the laws of this State and bring scandal and 
reproach upon the administration of justice in the County of Kings. 

Thinking that your Honor would not intentionally lend yourself to any 
disgraceful proceedings such as have characterized the administration of 
justice in reference to these gamblers in Kings County, I feel it my duty 
to lay before your Honor these facts, and ask, if it be consistent with the 
enforcement of law, that the certificate of doubt which your Honor has 
issued in these cases may be revoked. 

Your Honor will perceive that there will be no likelihood of any ap- 
plication being made on the part of the District Attorney or the Court 
of Sessions, who have thus notoriously allowed these crimes to go on, 
who have, in the face of monstrous scandals, permitted these laws to be 
violated; and I call attention to this one fact, that Judge Moore, in 
charging the Grand Jury, June 2, 1884, said to them, as was reported in 
all the papers at the time, that " the violation of law in the town of 
Gravesend against gambling was flagrant, persistent, and open." 

I enclose you also copy of a letter which I sent to Judge Moore, July 
II, 1884, which showed him clearly how these laws have been trans- 
gressed and exposes some of the scandalous proceedings that had been 
had up to that time, but nothing has been done thus far to stop these 
outrages by way of punishing offending parties. 

I beg further to present one thing for your consideration, that after 
the Governor's proclamation, in the fall of 1881, calling upon the courts 
to enforce the law against gambling, I secured over fifty-five (55) indict- 
ments, in the Sessions Court of Kings County, against common gam- 
blers, who were indicted for violating Section 344 of the Penal Code, 
which makes the offence a felony. The evidence in most of these cases 
is of the most absolute and positive character, being supported by two 
or more witnesses. In the face, however, of the Governor's proclama'- 
tion and this positive evidence, over fifty (50) indictments against these 
felons were dismissed, and without just cause these felons were allowed 
to escape the penalty of the law for their crimes, by the Sessions Court, 
in December, 1883. Some of these indictments had only been found in 
September, 1883, or about three months previous to their being dis- 
missed. 

To illustrate : one man named Philipps, a special policeman, was 
found writing " lottery-policy," in violation of Section 344. There was 
one witness who purchased the policy, and two other witnesses who im- 
mediately entered the premises where this man was violating the law 
and seized the manifold-book with the play recorded which he had just 
sold, and caught him in the act of writing other policies which he was 
then selling to persons there in the place as the officers entered. An- 



140 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



other man arrested the same afternoon named Foster, — the same 
facts are true concerning his case, except that he was not a special 
policeman ; and yet these are two of the indictments that were dismissed 
by this Court without any regard to the proof. 

Again, out of more than one hundred (ioo) indictments which I have 
secured the evidence for, that have been found in the Sessions Court for 
Kings County, but one of all that number was 'ever brought to trial, 
convicted, and sentenced in the Sessions Court of Kings County. 

In view of these facts, it must be manifest to your Honor that if a 
wrong has been done in the application for a stay of proceedings, or cer- 
tificate of doubt in reference to gambling cases, whatever imposition 
may have been made upon your Honor, will not be rectified by any 
representative of the people in the District Attorney's office of Kings 
County. 

I have deemed it my duty to lay these facts, the evidence of which 
is within my own knowledge, before your Honor, and to ask that they 
may be considered by you, and such action taken as these facts and the 
law in the premises will warrant and permit. 

Will not the Judges of the Supreme Court of the District of Kings 
County order an Oyer and Terminer Court to examine into all of these 
outrages against law and justice and try these indictments now pending, 
to the end that these laws may be enforced, that public gambling shall 
cease, and that men who have so long defied the laws may be taught 
that the laws cannot be violated with impunity ? 

If your Honor desires, I shall esteem it a pleasure to call upon you 
at any time that you may name and produce witnesses to substantiate 
and prove the facts as set out in this letter. 

Trusting that you will pardon the length of this communication and 
the liberty I have taken in addressing you, I remain, with an earnest de- 
sire to secure the proper enforcement of the law, and with very great 

respect, 

Your most obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony CAmstock, 
Secretary. 

In reply to this letter Justice Barnard very courteously 
responded. 

LETTER FROM JUSTICE BARNARD. 

A. Comstock : 

Dear Sir : — I have read your letter. The case before me was this : 
There were a number of convictions for a common offence. One was 



SECOND LETTER TO JUSTICE BARNARD. j 4 T 

appealed and argued and decided. The others were also appealed, but 
by agreement between the accused and the law officers of Kings County 
were not formally argued, but were to abide the result of the one case 
argued, as all were precisely alike. The case argued was appealed to 
the Court of Appeals, and the stipulation coming, I certified probable 
cause for the appeal. This certificate necessarily stayed the case which 
was argued, and also all the cases which depended upon it. I think the 
conviction is right and will be sustained, but the Appellate Court may 
differ from this. 

Yours, 

J. F. Barnard. 

This reply lets a little light upon this rather extraordinary 
proceeding*. It is natural to ask : Did Mr. Ridgway act in 
good faith with the Grand Jury ? Was there an agreement 
or contract for protection to these gamblers, or was there 
a faithful discharge of his duty under his oath of office ? Was 
not the appeal irregular ? Could there be a legal appeal ? 
More than a year had elapsed since the General Term affirmed 
the judgment of conviction. Was there a stipulation between 
Mr. Ridgway and the counsel for the defendants ? If so, 
what ? 

Another letter was sent Justice Barnard, as follows : 

Tannersville, Aug. 29, 1886. 
Hon. Joseph F. Barnard, 

Justice Supreme Court, 

Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: — I haste to make grateful acknowledgment of your 
esteemed favor of the 27th inst. May I ask if there was a stipulation 
made before your Honor, or any papers filed July 26, 1886, for a stay of 
the proceedings in the case of People vs. James E. Kelly et al. ? If so, 
I ask that you will allow your clerk to forward a copy of all the 
papers to me, certified. I will remit all fees as soon as he shall for- 
ward the same to me. 

There are two points in these cases which have very great force to my 
mind. 

First. For more than a year, while these gamblers have continued 
to violate the law, they have been permitted to go unsentenced, without 
any stay to prevent their being sentenced ; and no appeal has been per- 
fected or paper filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. 



42 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



Second. They were not moved for sentence until after the Grand Jury, 
in July last, had called Mr. Ridgway to account, and until a demand for 
the indictment of Mr. Ridgway had been made. As soon as he moved 
then (when he was forced to move), they apply for a stay, when they had 
allowed more than a year to elapse without perfecting their appeal or 
filing any papers with the Court of Appeals. This order of affirmance 
was made May n, 1885. 

The stay was asked for July 26, 1886. 

Should not the appeal have been completed within a year after the 
affirmance of the General Term, according to the Code of Criminal Pro- 
cedure ? 

During the present month another set of men have opened another 
race course, in the little town of Gravesend, making now three places 
where professional gamblers openly and flagrantly violate and defy the 
laws. The constituted authorities will not enforce these laws until forced 
to do so. No action was taken upon the affirmance of judgment of the 
General Term any more than if you had not decided the case. When 
forced to move, they shelter themselves behind a stay. I cannot but feel 
that there is no good faith in this, but rather a conspiracy on the part of 
the District Attorney and the counsel for these gamblers and the gam- 
blers themselves that they shall not be sentenced nor their unlawful 
business interfered with. 

From my knowledge of these cases and my conversation with Mr. 
Ridgway, and the rumors of "fixing things" by the payment of 
large sums of money by these gamblers, I cannot but believe and feel 
that the whole matter, so far as concerns the local authorities, lacks good 
faith and only confirms the scandalous charges, so often made, that there 
had been agreements made by which Mr. Ridgway would protect and 
shield these men from consequences of violated law. 

I respectfully submit that for a hundred or more indictments to 
remain untried while the prisoners continue to violate the law is to 
bring a sad reproach upon the administration of justice. 

Cannot something be done by the Judges of the Supreme Court to 
correct this evil ? I have the honor to be 

Your most obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

The Judges of the Supreme Court may order a term of 
the Oyer and Terminer Court to be held at any time, and 
the law requires a Grand Jury to be called each term. This 



NO APPEAL PAPERS FILED. 143 

last is true, as I am informed by lawyers, in some coun- 
ties of the State at least, if not in all. 

To this letter the Justice makes reply as follows : 

A. Comstock : 

Dear Sir — I do not remember the particular titles, but there were 
papers showing an appeal in due form, and a stipulation that the case on 
appeal was to determine the other cases. If the appeal was taken in 
the main case within the year, it would operate under the stipulation to 
stay the others until that was decided, if there was a certificate of prob- 
able cause for the appeal. The papers should be on file in the Kings 
County Clerk's office. No doubt the appeal can be heard Oct. 6, 1886, 
when the Court of Appeals meets. 

Yours truly, 

J, F. Barnard. 

We have not been able to find the moving papers above 

referred to. 

As to the appeal, and whether the stay should not even 
now be reconsidered, read the following letter to the Clerk of 
the Court of Appeals, sent the last week in January, 1887 : 

New York, Jan. 27, 1887. 
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, 

Albany, N. Y. 
Dear Sir:— I would respectfully ask that you will inform me, on the 
receipt of this, if there has been any judgment rolL or appeal papers, filed 
in the following cases, to wit : 
People vs. James E. Kelly, 
" " Michael Murray, 
" " John S. Stow, 
" " Thomas Murray, 
" " John Kelly, 

" " John T. McDougall, alias Dougal McDougall, 
" " David Johnson, 
" " Alfred H. Cridge, 
" " Martin Jordan, 
" " James Dunn. 

Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary, 
PerS. 



!44 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

To this letter Mr. Pen-in, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, 
replied upon its back as follows, and his reply was received 
January 29, 1887, to wit : 

NO RETURNS OR APPEAL PAPERS FILED YET. 

Albany, Jan. 28, 1887. 
Anthony Comstock, Esq., 

Secretary, etc. 
Dear Sir: — Returns on appeal to the Court of Appeals in none of the 
above cases have been filed in this office. 

Respectfully, 

E. O. Perrin, 
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, 

State of New York. 

Later, upon the witness stand, under another oath taken 
by him before the Bacon Investigating Committee, March 19, 
1887, Mr. Ridgway swears that the Kelly and other cases 
are " pending in the Court of Appeals," whereupon Mr. W. 
W. Goodrich produced a certificate from Mr. E. O. Perrin, 
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, showing that in none of the 
eleven cases decided by the General Term, May 11, 1885, 
have any returns whatever been received by him or in his 
office. 

One more item calls for attention in this connection. 

In response to Specification 13 of Charge 1 against Mr. 
Ridgway charging that " he did administer the laws in the 
interest of gamblers by refusing to cause their arrest and 
prosecute them before a committing magistrate while they 
were openly violating Section 351 of the Penal Code, and by 
refusing to allow bench warrants to be executed against said 
gamblers, and by refusing to allow their unlawful business 
to be interfered with on the 30M day of June, 1884, but did 
allow said gamblers to continue to violate the law, the said 
Ridgway notifying them through his officers to appear and 
give bail on the first day of July, " etc., Mr. Ridgway makes 
answer, under oath, as follows : — 



MORE FALSE S IV E A RING. ! 4 5 

"Respondent denies the same, and avers that in every 
instance where indictments had been found by the Grand 
Jury, and before they could be filed and bench warrants 
issued, the officers employed by Anthony Comstock, who are 
his constant associates, repaired to the race track and there 
informed the persons they had complained against that in- 
dictments had been found and that bench warrants would 
be issued for their arrest." 

To this we reply : This statement is maliciously false and 
known to Mr. Ridgway to be false. 

He further says : — " A large number of indictments were 
found against John Doe and Richard Roe, whose names the 
said witnesses asserted that they did not know, and that they 
demanded that the District Attorney should issue the bench 
warrants to them for execution. That respondent believed 
that they desired to make use of the processes of the court 
for improper purposes, and believing many public rumors 
that they, in conjunction with Anthony Comstock, were en- 
gaged in blackmailing such offenders, respondent refused 
to give them the bench warrants for execution, and placed 
them in the hands of the Sheriff of the County of Kings. 
And that respondent is informed and verily believes that it is 
because respondent refused to permit the processes of the 
court to be used by the said Comstock and his assistants for 
blackmailing purposes that these charges have been made 
and are now made against respondent. " 

There are two or three things in this connection which I 
ask the reader to consider : 

First — There were no indictments found at that time nor 
that year against "John Doe" or "Richard Roe." Mr. 
Ridgway could not produce a single indictment found in 
June, 1884 ( t0 which these charges refer), or in any part of 
1884, containing the name of a single gambler indicted as 
"John Doe" or "Richard Roe" before the Bacon Inves- 



146 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



tigating Committee. And not one appears upon the list he 
himself produced and put in evidence. 

Secondly — Mr. Ridgway was never asked to give us the 
bench warrants. 

Thirdly — That is not our way of dealing with blackmailers 
or blackmailing schemes. 

At that time there had been boasts made by the gamblers, 
at least rumors of boasts made by the gamblers, that they 
had not only my office, but Mr. Ridgway's office, " fixed " so 
that they would not be interfered with. The writer took 
these rumors to Mr. Ridgway, June 23, 1884, Mr. W. C. 
Beecher being present. As has been shown-, we sent down 
to the race course and secured the evidence against twenty- 
two of the principal gamblers, took the evidence and the 
witnesses to Mr. Ridgway, and demanded of him that these 
men forthwith be arrested and their gambling paraphernalia 
seized. We also urged as a reason why prompt action should 
be taken the fact that these scandalous rumors were in cir- 
culation. It will be seen that we did succeed in overcoming 
the antipathy to interfere with the gambling business, by 
threats of going directly to Governor Cleveland, sufficiently 
to have twenty-two of the gamblers indicted ; ' and then a 
peace officer conveyed to them the compliments of the Dis- 
trict Attorney and invited them to come up to his office and 
give bail, which was done against our protest. 

But this was not all. As soon as the September or fall 
season of 1884 opened at Sheepshead Bay fresh rumors 
were set afloat that the 

GAMBLERS HAD EVERYBODY " FIXED." 

What we did then by advertising a reward, by securing the 
evidence against the very men whom it was charged had paid 
us $2500 as the price of our silence, our fight for more than 
two years to get these men into court, are all before the 



BLA C KM AIL AND BRIBES. ! 4 y 

reader. Would we have contended for the prosecution of 
these gamblers, in face of bitterest opposition, had they paid 
us money for our silence ? Do blackmailers press criminals 
to the bar of justice after they have extorted money from 
them, especially, as in this case, where the gamblers and Dis- 
trict Attorney were both hostile and all looking for points 
and means to down them, and particularly where the receiv- 
ing of such money is a State's-prison offence ? Not so. 

Blackmailers do not prosecute criminals in courts after 
they have committed a crime by receiving the criminals' 
money. 

If money is the motive that actuates the agents of the 
Society for the Suppression of Vice, it would not be neces- 
sary for us to put ourselves in the hands of gamblers who 
are protected by officials. Such a process is rather haz- 
ardous. Blackmailers do not generally demand protection 
money from criminals who have the ear, friendship, and pro- 
tection of District Attorneys and other executive officers. 

If we had desired money considerations, we need not to 
have waited until this late day. 

In the case of the gilded palace on Fifth Avenue, kept by 
the notorious Madame Restell, that was suppressed through 
the efforts of the agents of this Society, a gentleman who 
was at that time ner attorney, and who to-day occupies an 
official position in the City of New York, says he had placed 
in his hands $40,000 in cash, to be paid to the writer to se- 
cure his co-operation in a scheme to protect the wretched 
proprietress of that establishment from criminal prosecution. 

Upon another occasion a gentleman called at our office, 
who was very solicitous for our health, and wanted to know if 
I would not like to take a trip around the world with my 
family. When told, " I could not afford it," he was ex- 
ceedingly interested to know from me, " if my salary for five 
years was paid in advance and a handsome sum for travel- 



148 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



ling expenses was deposited with it to my order in my bank, 
if I would not make the excursion ? " 

There is a standing offer from one lottery company, whom 
we had driven out of the City of New York and forced to close 
their doors, of $25,000 cash a year if we will not interfere 
with them if they open a lottery office in this city. 

One notorious fraud, who had an income of more than 
$1000 a day through the mail, and whose fraudulent opera- 
tinos were suppressed through this office, sent his emissaries 
to our office with an offer of $20,000 if we would allow his 
schemes to continue through the mail and not interfere 
with him. 

Money is the potent power by which crime is allowed to 
exist. It is a subtle secret influence often applied by gam- 
blers and other criminals to secure immunity from arrest 
and prosecution. 

We have neither protected crimes nor blackmailed crim- 
inals. 

If we had, does any one suppose that our enemies would 
not have secured the fact and used it against us? The 
gambler knows when he is blackmailed and to whom he 
pays the levy. With hundreds of criminals convicted by us 
during the past fifteen years, does any one suppose for one 
moment that if there had been any crime committed by us, 
it would not have been proven years ago, and not be 
left for an official, writhing under the lash of public scorn 
for failure to do his duty, to insinuate it by his " I heard so" 

Does Mr. Ridgway intend the public to understand that 
after all the favors he has shown the gamblers since January 
1, 1884, when he first went into office, he and they to- 
gether have only " I heard so " to support his base insinua- 
tions ? I leave the public to say. 

In summing up, we find that professional gamblers from 
outside the County of Kings for years have been permitted 
to go into Kings County and openly violate the law. James 



RESUME OF FACTS. I4Q 

E. Kelly, the "boss" gambler, with comforting words— 
and his statements have not been denied in any public man- 
ner, that I have been able to discover — told his men June 
30, 1884, that " these indictments will be pigeon-holed 
and we have nothing to fear ; in any case our business will 
not be interfered with this season." Complaints are borne 
to the District Attorney's office that " it is charged that these 
men have made a bargain, that they have paid $50,000, and 
in consideration of the said money they were not to be in- 
terfered with." Yet, in the face of- these rumors, confirmed 
by the statements of James E. Kelly and the extraordinary 
proceedings in these cases, not a single one of all these cases 
has been prosecuted to judgment of sentence. Indictment 
after indictment has been permitted to be filed and remain 
pigeon-holed ; eleven cases where no stay of proceedings 
was granted from May 11, 1885, to July 26, 1886, remain 
unsentenced ; these same indicted gamblers were permitted 
to go right on violating the law, with subsequent indictments 
for subsequent offences found in the mean time, in the same 
court, untried, — and yet not one of these men has been to this 
writing tried o?i subsequent indictments nor sentenced on the 
judgment of conviction. 

Can such things as these be permitted in an enlightened 
community and be tolerated or sanctioned when the facts 
are known ? Must the writer lose his reputation for truth 
and veracity before the people because he has untiringly 
and persistently endeavored by due process of law to stop 
gambling ? 

Are we to be execrated because we have dared to stem 
this tide of corruption and expose this official's neglect and 
rottenness ? If that be the verdict, after reading this record 
of facts, then let the hand of vengeance fall ; we still have 
he comfort and consolation of having done at least some- 
thing to crush out these evils. We appeal to the public for 
their verdict. 



*5o 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER IX. 



WHITEWASHED. 



After Mr. Ridgway's arduous duties in acquitting Dougal 
McDougall, the innocent, in place of John T., the guilty, 
after John T. had had a judgment of conviction entered 
against him in the same court for the offence set out in the 
indictment upon which Dougal, the innocent, was tried, 
Mr. Ridgway bethought him of another strategic move- 
ment by which he was to secure for himself a " karacter." 
The Grand Jury applied a coat of 

whitewash. 

The January Grand Jury of 1885 made a presentment 
to the Court as follows : 

After citing several " Whereas " as to where they derived 
their information and what they had done, the Grand Jury 
say : 

" The Grand Jury does further present that there does not now exist 
in any precinct of said county, so far as the authorities know, any gam- 
bling house, room or premises ; that so far as an honest and energetic 
discharge of official duty can accomplish such a result, the City of 
Brooklyn and County of Kings is entirely free from all gambling 
houses, rooms, or premises of every description ; that the present admin- 
istration of the law by all of said authorities is most efficient and ener- 
getic ; and that the District Attorney's office of the county has been and 
now is administered honestly, vigorously, and thoroughly, and in full 
loyalty to the public welfare. 

(Signed) " Herbert W. Clapp, 

" (Foreman), with Eighteen Grand Jurors." 

This was in itself so ridiculous that the papers denounced 
it as a " whitewashing " scheme. 



WHITE WASHED. j , x 

First, note the fact that not a witness was called from the 
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice to testify as to 
facts within their knowledge. 

Secondly, charges were then pending before the Gover- 
nor against Mr. Ridgway and his administration. 

Thirdly, the following advertisement appeared in one or 
more papers during the time that this Grand Jury were in 
session, to wit : 

POOL-SELLING OPENLY ADVERTISED. 

11 SPORTING : New Orleans races commence Tuesday, January 
26. Auction, Mutual^ Combination Pools, book-making at Paul Bauer's 
Club House, West Brighton, Coney Island. Telegraph orders receive 
prompt attention. Take Sea Beach route. Races, Wednesday and 
Friday of each week. Sea Beach railroad tickets good on race days." 

In this connection it will be of interest to read the letter 
to Mr. Ridgway of September 18, on page 103, which con- 
tained the names and residences of witnesses against 
seventeen gamblers whom he would not permit to be brought 
before any Grand Jury. Consider Dougal the innocent. 
Then say whether the foreman of the Grand Jury and eigh- 
teen members, under their oaths, could certify that " the pres- 
ent administration of the law by all of said authorities is 
most efficient and energetic, and that the District Attorney's 
office of the county has been and now is administered hon- 
estly, vigorously, and thoroughly, and in full loyalty to the 
public welfare." 

Let it be remembered that none of the witnesses against 
the gamblers named in the letter of the eighteenth of Sep- 
tember, 1884, were examined by this Grand Jury. Not one 
had been examined at all concerning the offences commit- 
ted in September, 1884, by the gamblers who had been in- 
dicted in June. 



jc 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

The chief editor of the Brooklyn Union had been called 
as a witness, and in their presentment the Grand Jury say, 

" Has summoned before it the chief editor of said newspaper, who 
after having been examined upon them, testified that he had no knowl- 
edge of the existence of any gambling place within the boundary of 
Kings County." 

This presentment was filed on the thirtieth day of January, 
1885. The Brooklyn Union of January 31, 1885, in speak- 
ing of the presentment of the Grand Jury, says : 

" The editor of the Union begs to repeat that he has no personal knowl- 
edge of the existence of such at the present time, though he is credibly 
assured by those whose tastes or opportunities for observation differ 
from his that card gambling was never carried to such lengths as just 
now in Brooklyn. But the editor offered to furnish the District Attorneys 
and hereby offers to furnish any Grand Jury desiring to get at the facts, 
with the testimony of those members of the staff of the Union who have 
been detailed to visit and describe the pool-rooms at Coney Island. 
He would direct attention to the evidence supplied by Mr. Comstock 
from the advertising columns of a New York newspaper that pools 
are now being sold at Paul Bauer's, " etc. 

As the result of a letter to the Brooklyn Eagle^ above 
referred to, I am very happy to record something of interest 
in favor of Mr. Ridgway. On February 4 a man named 
George Miller was arrested at Paul Bauer's place. No pools 
were being sold, but Miller was cashing in pool tickets for 
those that held winners. He was arrested. Afterwards 
Mr. Paul Bauer came forward to go his bail. Bauer unwit- 
tingly admitted that he was the proprietor of the place where 
the pool-gambling was advertised as being carried on, and 
thereupon Mr. Bauer was indicted on the tenth day of Feb- 
ruary and arrested. He was subsequently convicted and 
sentenced by Judge Moore to three months' imprisonment 
and $750 fine. After sentence Mr. Bauer paid his fine and 
then appealed from the judgment, on the ground that he 
had been illegally sentenced ; that " the judge erred in sen- 



COMMON GAMBLERS SHIELDED. 



153 



tencing him to less than one year's imprisonment," under 
Section 351 of the Penal Code. He was brought out on 
habeas corpus proceedings and appealed to the General 
Term of the Supreme Court, which at Poughkeepsie, May 25, 
1885, by a unanimous decision, sustained the judgment. — 
(People vs. Bauer, 37 Hun.) Mr. Bauer, however, has been 
shielded from the further serving of his sentence, and still 
walks the streets of Kings County a free man, notwithstand- 
the decision of the General Term. 

POLICY GAMBLERS ALSO SHIELDED. 

The same day that Mr. Bauer was arrested we secured 
the arrest of John E. Cummings, a common gambler, who kept 
a policy and gambling place at 170 Skillman Street, where 
we seized a large amount of paraphernalia, including the 
manifold-books upon which the policy which he had just 
sold was recorded. When the officer and the writer entered 
the premises we found him sitting at a table writing 'policies 
— engaged in the act. One of my assistants had just pur- 
chased a policy, and the record of the same was found on 
the table in front of Cummings ; and yet notwithstanding all 
this evidence John E. Cummings has never been brought to 
trial. 

Prior to this, two persons had been arrested in Clinton 
Street for keeping a gambling saloon there, one named The- 
ophilus Gilman and the other Buckley. These men when 
arrested were found in possession of the place with the gam- 
bling paraphernalia in their possession. The witnesses had 
previously been in and seen the gambling games going on. 
Besides all this, when these men were arraigned before the 
committing magistrate, Mr. Gilman pleaded " guilty ; " yet 
neither of these men has been prosecuted thus far. These 
cases were pending at the time of the filing of this present- 
ment by the Grand Jury. 

These cases illustrate the " honest and vigorous " 



j., GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

manner in which the District Attorney had discharged his 
duty, as set forth by the foreman of the Grand Jury and 
eighteen members aforesaid. 

The indictments against pool gamblers of Brighton Beach, 
John Y. McKane, chief of police, and eight of his subordi- 
nates, indicted Sept., 1883, remained untried, while gam- 
bling had continued at that race 'course for 125 days during 
the year 1884, if the official turf guide is to be believed. 
Had this Grand Jury knowledge of these facts? We do 
not believe it. They were simply manipulated, by some 
one in Mr. Ridgway's interests. // was all for effect upoti 
the public mind. 

As long as the public can be hoodwinked rascalities 
pay better than the faithful discharge of duty. Let the 
mask be torn away. Open the dark dungeon door which is 
sought to be hermetically sealed so that the public cannot 
see, and let the light in upon these whited sepulchres. It 
is time 'to call a halt all along the line. 

CHARGES TO THE GOVERNOR. 

As has been seen, Nov., 1884, when we found that noth- 
ing could be done to enforce the law in Kings County, 
not even upon those whom we had secured indictments 
against, the Executive Committee of the New York Society 
for the Suppression of Vice appealed to Governor Cleveland. 

It must be remembered that we could not get our first 
twenty-two cases before the Grand Jury, even after Mr. Ridg- 
way's letter and public proclamation of April and May, 1884, 
and Judge Moore's charge to the Grand Jury of June 3, 1884, 
until we threatened to go direct to the Governor of the State. 

As the result of the appeal of the Executive Committee, 
the gamblers were brought into Court Dec. 1, 1884, and 
their demurs overruled. 

But it is said we did not press our charges. What was 
done, and why ? 



WHY CHARGES WERE NOT PRESSED. i 5 5 

Governor Cleveland had been called to the highest gift 
01 the nation. He had been elected President of the United 
States. This necessarily involved a suspension of many 
duties connected with the executive office of the State. In 
his preparations for a higher and more important duty he 
had not time, nor could it have been reasonably expected 
of him, to take up our charges, but rather he referred them 
to his successor in office. Supplemental charges were filed 
concerning the substituting of innocent Dougal McDougall, 
of New York, in place of guilty John T. McDougall, of 
Hoboken. 

A committee of Messrs. H. E. Simmons, W. C. Beecher, 
and myself were appointed to press these charges before 
Governor Hill. Mr. Simmons and myself went to Albany 
and had an interview with him some time in January or 
February, 1885, after he had had a little time to straighten 
out matters appertaining to his office. 

Governor Hill suggested that we should take all the 
papers and unite the two charges together and return the 
same to him. We took the papers intending to do so. A 
day or two after we reached New York one of our committee 
received a letter from Mr. Ridgway containing a promise 
and pledge to do all in his power to break up gambling. 

We had no personal animosity against Mr. Ridgway. 
We sought the enforcement of the law; we were willing to 
meet him more than half way and co-operate most heartily. 
We therefore withdrew our charges entirely and accepted 
Mr. Ridgway's promise. Read his letter as follows :— 

Office of the District Attorney, Court House, Room 3. 
Kings County, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

February 10, 1885. 

William C. Beecher, Esq., 

^SomTdays stace my attention was called to an article in the Brooklyn 
Times in which you are reported as having said that you would gladly 



1 5 6 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



render any service that might contribute to destroy the business of pool- 
selling at Coney Island. I take this opportunity of saying to you that 
it is my intention to give personally my time to the destruction of this 
business, and from this time forth I will exert all the power contained in 
this office to effect such a result. And I will be pleased if you will call 
my attention to any future violation of the gambling laws in this county 
. and give me the benefit of such evidence as you may secure. I have 
notified the officers of the several race tracks that they must not permit 
pools to be sold upon their tracks, and if at the opening of the season 
they disregard the notification, I will proceed against them in such, a 
way that I think will drive it from the county forever. 

Very respectfully yours, 

James W. Ridgway. 

The season would not open at the best until June, 1885. 
We waited till that time. In the mean time the appeals 
of these eleven gamblers who had appealed Dec., 1884, 
together with the case of Paul Bauer, who also appealed, 
had been argued in the Supreme Court, and June 8, 1885, 
the order of affirmance was filed in the County Clerk's office 
in Brooklyn. 

We secured new indictments against some of the gam- 
blers for offences committed June, 1885, and they were 
duly apprehended. Everything promised well. So long as 
it did we were willing to wait, test Mr. Ridgway's good faith, 
and give him our support. He kept promising to call these 
indicted parties to trial. We waited. It went on until June, 
1886, and none of the cases appealed had reached the Court 
of Appeals, not a gambler had been tried, and their unlaw- 
ful business kept right on. 

It was then determined to carry the matter again to the 
Governor, with new and additional charges. It required 
much time to prepare these papers, and besides we thought 
, the shortest way was to have Mr. Ridgway indicted. Then 
came the cases in June and July, 1886, and after that a 
most responsible duty, which called us away from New 
York to Saratoga for two weeks and niore. It was not 



CHARGES LAID BEFORE GO VERNOR HILL. \ 5 y 

until September 10, 1886, that we could complete these 
papers and file them with the Governor. 

CHARGES BEFORE GOVERNOR HILL AGAINST MR. RIDGWAY. 

Charges and specifications were filed with Governor Hill 
Sept. 10, 1886, and the. removal of Mr. Ridgway demanded 
thereon. At an interview had with the Governor at the 
Hoffman House, New York City, in October following, the 
Governor informed* the writer that ' he had read the charges 
and specifications, and that if they were proven there was 
enough to remove two district attorneys ; that he had not 
served a copy of the papers upon Mr. Ridgway, and desired 
a conference upon the subject of not taking action until after 
the election. As a reason why he would not take action, 
the Governor said he did not desire to take any action that 
might prejudice the coming election ; that Mr. Ridgway, if re- 
elected, could be as well removed after the first of January as 
before the expiration of his then present term, that it would 
necessarily occupy considerable time before the case could 
be brought to a conclusion, and therefore he did not think it 
best to take any action until after election ; that if Mr. 
Ridgway should be reelected, and after election we still de- 
sired to take action against him, that he would move at once 
upon our demand.' The idea advanced was, that this was a 
political movement upon our part. This was emphatically 
denied. After this interview the matter was laid before the 
Executive Committee of the New York Society for the Sup- 
pression of Vice, and the following letter was sent to Gov- 
ernor Hill, defining our position. The committee directed 
that an additional copy of the charges and specifications 
should be forwarded in order that the Governor might have 
an extra copy to serve upon Mr. Ridgway and thus prevent 
delay. 



jc3 GAMBLING OUTRAGES^ 



LETTER TO GOVERNOR HILL. 

New York, Oct. 13, 1886. 

To His Excellency 

David B. Hill, 

Governor of the State of New York, 
Albany, N. Y. 

Dear Sir : — At a meeting of the executive committee of this Society 
held yesterday afternoon at these rooms, I was advised by those present 
to send you a copy of the charges and specifications filed in your office 
on the 10th day of September last, and to respectfully say to you that in 
no way can our action be justly construed as a political movement. 

In presenting these charges, it has been done because of the corrupt 
conduct, as we firmly believe, of Mr. Ridgway, in failing to discharge 
the duties of his office ; and owing to his neglect to enforce these laws 
new gambling schemes and devices have been adopted and have been 
allowed to continue, and the laws have been allowed to be violated both 
before and since the filing of these charges, without being interfered with. 
I am directed by the gentlemen also to ask that your Excellency will 
forthwith serve upon Mr. Ridgway these charges and specifications. 
And as a special reason why it should be done we enclose you herewith 
an article published in the Brooklyn Citizen, of Kings Count}', under 
date of October 6, showing that Mr. Ridgway is making political cap- 
ital out of the fact that your Excellency has not served these charges 
upon him. 

I understood you to say in that interview that if the charges were 
proven there was sufficient to remove two district attorneys. 

I respectfully submit that this is a serious matter ; that in the entire 
term of Mr. Ridgway, now nearly three years, he has wilfully neglected 
to enforce these laws which the Legislature of the State, by Section 349, 
made it his imperative duty to enforce. Mr. Ridgway in this article 
says : " There is absolutely nothing in these charges which I cannot an- 
swer and dispose of in twenty-four hours after they are served. They 
come from such an unimportant and unreliable source, and their purport 
is so obvious, that Governor Hill has never even served them. The 
public has been led to believe that these charges have been served. 
Such is not the case. I am ready to meet them at any time." 

I respectfully submit, that with charges as serious as these, pending 
since the 10th of September, with the open violations of law continuing in 



LE TTER TO GO VERNOK HILL. i 59 

Kings County, with unsentenced gamblers continuing to defy the same 
laws for which they stand convicted ; and with indictment after indict- 
ment against the same men and these same indictments remaining un- 
tried while, the gamblers continue to violate the law : these in themselves 
are sufficient reasons why these charges should be considered, irrespect- 
ive of any election or nomination which may possibly come to the man 
who has failed to enforce the laws, and also that these charges should 
be served, so that this man shall not at least boast to the public that 
these charges are so trifling that your Excellency will take no action 
upon them. 

We have repeatedly contended for the enforcement of these laws. 
We have spent hundreds of dollars in the securing of evidence against 
these criminals. In due form of law we have brought the evidence of 
these crimes to the prosecuting attorney, there to meet with opposition ; 
there to have our plans thwarted ; there to have complaints and indict- 
ments "pigeon-holed," while the offenders are permitted to openly 
violate the law. 

On Friday afternoon, after having my interview with your Excellency, 
a young man came to my office and desired a confidential interview ; and 
in that interview he confessed that he was induced to visit the race track 
at Sheepshead Bay last June ; that he won a little at first, and that so 
sure was he of winning a fortune that he took money from his employer, 
expecting from his winnings to pay it back. He lost ; took more money ; 
continued to lose, and in his desperation, after taking about $2500, went 
to the wharf to throw himself into the river. Then he said : " I thought 
it was a cowardly thing to do. I thought of my wife and children, and 
I determined to go back and confess all," as he has done to his employ- 
ers, who are now putting forth efforts to save him and help him redeem 
the past. 

On Saturday there was arrested in Brooklyn, an employe of the well- 
known firm of Ovington Brothers, who confessed to Justice Walsh to 
stealing more than $1000 worth of silverware, knives, forks, etc., from 
the firm, and that he had spent the proceeds in the policy shop of Henry 
Dela Motta, of 308 Hudson Avenue ; the Henry Dela Motta being the 
one named in the charges before your Excellency as having been indict, 
ed June 14, 1883, but who has never been arraigned to plead to said 
indictment. 

On Monday last a gentleman came to this office and asked for an in- 
terview with me, to get advice about a young man who had stolen his 
mother's watch and pawned it in a policy shop, in the city of New York. 
Before he was through he broke down and with tears streaming down 
his cheeks told me that it was his oldest boy, seventeen years of age. 



l6o GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Your Excellency, these are reasons why we contend for the enforce- 
ment of the law. These and similar cases, constantly coming to our 
notice, are the reasons why we appeal to you to secure the enforcement 
of the law against these crime-breeders in Kings County. 

Gambling, like intemperance and lust, begets every other crime. 

We respectfully submit that these charges should be considered, irre- 
spective of whether there is an election about to take place, or whether 
there is a prospect or none of Mr. Ridgway's nomination. If nominated 
and elected, and then we come to you to press these charges, the plea 
will be made that the issue has been tried before the people of Kings 
County, and that they decided to re-elect this man. 

It must be apparent to your Excellency that there can be no sifting of 
facts, and no proper investigation in the whirlpool of political strife pre- 
ceding an election. One may say one thing, and another another. He 
says he is not guilty. We contend he is guilty, and we are ready to 
prove it to your Excellency. 

Will not the Chief Executive of this .State help this organization to 
secure such an enforcement of the law as shall save the weak ones in the 
community from these criminal disgraces, such as are constantly follow- 
ing in the wake of the reckless gambling thus permitted to be carried on 
in open violation of law ? 

His Honor, Judge Moore, in charging the Grand Jury, June 2, 1884, 
is reported by the papers as saying (concerning pool gambling in the 
town of Gravesend) : "The violations of the law dre open, flagrant and 
persistent," and these words have been verified over and over again 
from that time down to the present time ; and yet, upon not one of all the 
large number of indictments found through the agency of this Society 
has a gambler been sentenced. 

I have the honor to be, 

On behalf of this society, 

Your most obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 

Secretary. 

In November, 1886, Mr. Ridgway was re-elected. Prior 
to this, it will be remembered, the clergymen of Brooklyn 
had made an examination into the facts, concerning the 
charges made against Mr. Ridgway by the writer, .and in the 
latter part of October they made an elaborate report (which 
was published in the Brooklyn papers), extracts of which are 



GOVERNOR HILL DOES NO T MO VE. 161 

.printed in the foregoing pages of this book. This report 
contains the following words : 

" In conclusion the committee beg to say that after patient and la- 
borious examination of the facts within their reach, together with the 
statements of interested parties, that they do not find that Mr. Corn- 
stock's statements can be successfully impeached in any essential par- 
ticular. 

The matter of the charges before Governor Hill dragged 
along until the 5th day of February, 1887, when Mr. Ridg- 
way filed his answer before the Governor, joining issue with 
the facts, and then moved to dismiss on his answer. The 
very joining of issue, or denying the truth of the charges, 
raised a question of fact that could only be determined by 
evidence. If Mr. Ridgway had demurred to the charges, 
thus alleging that they were true, but did not constitute a 
ground for removal, then he might have had some basis for 
his motion to dismiss. But the moment he raised a question 
as to the truthfulness of the charges, then, according to all 
legal precedents, evidence as to the fact was next in order. 

Governor Cleveland, in 1884, said of this case : " If Mr. 
Ridgway denies the facts, then the matter must be sent to a 
referee and evidence taken ; and if the charges are proven 
it is the solemn duty of the Chief Executive under his oath to 
remove Mr. Ridgway." 

The decision of Governor Hill upon this motion of Mr. 
Ridgway to dismiss these charges, has not yet been rendered, 
so far as ^ve can ascertain. 

May 10, 1887, the report of the Bacon Investigating 
Committee was adopted by the Assembly at Albany. This 
report contained the following concerning Mr. Ridgway, 
which has a bearing upon the charges already filed before 
the Governor, to wit : 

Upon the evidence before us it does not admit of doubt : 
1. That Mr. Ridgway has systematically and deliberately protected 
11 



x 62 GAMBLING outrages. 

the persons violating the laws in Gravesend from prosecution ; that out 
of such violations these persons have been earning great sums of money ; 
that after warning them that he should prevent their violations and pun- 
ish them if the offences were committed, nevertheless, for reasons which 
he does not explain, he immediately thereafter refrained from taking any 
steps whatever to make good his word. 

2. That although vested by the law with the power to break up such 
gambling proceedings by a seizure of paraphernalia, he has refused to ex- 
ercise the power. 

3. That although numerous indictments have been found by Grand 
Juries during his term of office against individuals for gambling offences, 
he has deliberately and systematically contrived to prevent their cases 
being brought to trial. 

4. That upon an indictment intended against John T. McDougall, and 
to which John T. McDougall pleaded, and upon which he gave bail, Mr. 
Ridgway knowingly tried a different person, with the intent to discredit 
the persons upon whose testimony John T. McDougall had been right- 
fully indicted, and to bring into disrepute the prosecution of such offend- 
ers. 

5. That in the case of Paul Bauer, a well-known, wealthy, intelligent 
and important offender, who was Mr. Ridgway' s personal client until he 
became District Attorney, Mr. Ridgway has, after a conviction, sentence, 
and affirmance of the conviction, permitted Bauer to go without serving 
his sentence, although there has been no stay of proceedings and no ap- 
proval or acquiescence of the court. 

6. That in order to prevent any proceedings against the Sheriff for 
his -failure to proceed against gamblers, Mr. Ridgway, in October, 1886, 
advised the Grand Jury that a mere indictment of the Sheriff would re- 
move him from office and cause a forfeiture of all his emoluments, al- 
though such was not the law, and although there was no reason to believe 
that such was the law. 

These facts necessarily demonstrate that Mr. Ridgway should not be 
District Attorney of Kings County. The conclusion is so obvious that 
it does not need to be stated. Under our system prosecutions for crime 
depend upon the District Attorney. If he fail in the discharge of his 
duty, crime goes unpunished. The moment that it becomes understood 
that criminals may depend upon his indifference or partiality, restraint 
upon the commission of crime is weakened or withdrawn. The position 
of the District Attorney is unique. He is a law to himself. It is es- 
sential to the community that his discretion should be great ; he is more 
largely trusted than any other officer of the law. But for this very rea- 
son the community must, for its mere safety, require from him the strictest 



COMMITTEE REPOR TS ON RIDG WA Y. \ 63 

loyalty to the intent of the law, and the most zealous and impartial 
discharge of his duty, when that duty is plain. If a judge commit er- 
ror, the law provides a mode by which the error can be corrected. If an 
executive officer be bribed, the machinery of the government may still 
proceed. But all that is necessary to permit crime to be rampant is that 
a District Attorney, either by keeping cases from the Grand Jury or by 
ignoring the action of the Grand Jury when it is taken, shall omit to 
conduct the proceedings which are preliminary to the prosecution for 
crime and are essential to conviction. He is the adviser of the Grand 
Jury. He frames all indictments. No criminal can be brought to trial 
or successfully prosecuted without his instrumentality. 

Under ordinary circumstances there would have been no embarrass- 
ment in determining what recommendation to make to meet Mr. Ridg- 
way's case. He should be removed from office in the mode which has 
been prescribed and which has been heretofore followed. And although 
reasons may be suggested against this course at this time and in this 
case, the committee cannot see that they are called to recognize them or 
to deviate from the direct and ordinary course. It is true that Mr. Ridg- 
way may be indicted. But if he is to be indicted it must be in the 
county of which he is himself District Attorney. That a District Attor- 
ney shall procure himself to bejndicted for violation of his duty as such 
cannot be expected. It may be said that Mr. Ridgway is liable to im- 
peachment That is true. But to have him tried by the Court of Im- 
peachment will not only involve serious labor to the members of that 
court, will not only be attended with great expense, but, what is of much 
more consequence, will be to pursue an unusual and extraordinary 
course, the only reason for which would seem to be an unwillingness to 
leave his case with the Governor of the State. 

We recommend that this report and the evidence upon which it is 
based be respectfully submitted to the Governor, that he may, in the 
usual method, proceed against James W. Ridgway, the District Attorney 
of Kings County, as the due administration of law and the welfare of the 
State require. 



We waited till more than a year, in which by law they 
were entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeals, had passed, 
and no appeal having been filed in that court and not a gam- 
bler tried of our cases, we thought it best then to press 
these charges, which embraced a specification covering the 
failures of duty and violations of law as set out in this record. 



164 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



What good has been accomplished by your appeals ? may 
be asked. 

The threat to go to the Governor, June 26, 1884, secured 
the indictment forthwith of twenty-two gamblers. 

The appeal of the Executive Committee to Governor 
Cleveland, of Nov., 1884, forced the gamblers into court 
Dec. 1, 1884, and secured the eleven judgments of convic- 
tion. 

The demand to the Grand Jury July, 1886, resulted in the 
indictment of the seventeen cases which Ridgway would not 
prosecute from Sept., 1884; and also the notice for gamblers 
to appear for sentence July 26, 1886. 

The appeal made by us June, 1886, resulted in the send- 
ing of Mr. Shorter, the assistant District Attorney, down to 
Coney Island to notify the gamblers that they must cease 
their unlawful business, and temporarily it was done, while 
that Grand Jury was in session. 

The filing of our charges, Sept. 10, 1886, was followed by 
the trial of two of the weakest cases we had, to wjt : " The 
People vs. The Coney Island Jockey Club," and "The 
People vs. The Brighton Beach Racing Association," be- 
fore that month was out. 

By these gentle stimulants we have at least disturbed the 
" combine '■ and brought about what has been accomplished 
thus far. 

We appealed to the Legislature, and an Investigating 
Committee has tested the truth of our charges. 

This committee says of the New York Society 'for the 
Suppression of Vice as follows : — 

It is proper here to refer to the public services rendered by the Society 
for the Suppression of Vice, and especially by its competent and vig- 
orous agent, Anthony Comstock. Several of the witnesses before us, 
especially General Catlin and Mr. Ridgway, saw fit to attack Mr. Com- 
stock. Mr. Ridgway did not hesitate to accuse him of blackmailing. 
But neither Mr. Ridgway nor General Catlin claimed to have personal 



THE SOCIETY SUSTAINED. 



•65 



knowledge of any fact inconsistent with Mr. Comstock's integrity of 
purpose. It appeared that their dislike of him had arisen solely from 
his persistent and unceasing efforts to have them perform their duties 
in the prosecution of gamblers. It was insinuated that there might be 
difficulty in procuring convictions upon Mr. Comstock's evidence ; but 
as to this there was no more than insinuation. No reference was made 
to any case in which a jury had disbelieved the testimony either of Mr. 
Comstock or of his subordinates. On the contrary, Mr. Backus, Gen- 
eral Catlin's first assistant, and to whom was committed the actual trial 
of the gambling cases, testified (p. 977) that down to the expiration of 
his term of office Mr. Comstock was "continually crowding these prose- 
cutions " against the gamblers ; that without subpoenas he produced the 
witnesses ; that he " was always ready and came freely and always 
testified promptly; he and his men were always there on time in all of 
the lottery policy cases ; " that conviction always resulted in the cases 
that were prosecuted by Mr. Comstock and his men and which were 
tried; that he "never lost a case with Mr. Comstock as a witness— Mr. 
Comstock and his men." It is impossible that the services to the public 
of the nature of those performed by Mr. Comstock should not be attend- 
ed with a pertinacity extremely disagreeable to those counter to whose 
wishes or interests Mr. Comstock has gone. Work such as Mr. Com- 
stock performs is vitally essential to the safety and decency of the com- 
munity. But few citizens are willing to make the sacrifice necessary to 
its performance. From the testimony before us, we are convinced that 
the community owes Mr. Comstock and his Society a very great debt ; 
that there is no reason to doubt their entire sincerity and honesty of 
purpose ; that the intelligence with which their work is performed is of 
a high order, and that it simply needs proper official co-operation to 
secure a wholesome success most valuable to the cause of public morals. 

Now, at last, we appeal to the public and present the facts 
for their consideration. 

Have we proven worthy of the confidence and favor of 
good citizens ? We have not gained the favor of the gam- 
blers nor their friends. We have not sought that. Have 
we earned a right to be heard ? Are not these facts worthy 
of honest contemplation ? 

Read some of the special argtmients for this new gambling 
system of " improving the breed of horses." 



66 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER X. 

SPECIAL ARGUMENTS. 

The* following cases are respectfully submitted to thought- 
ful men for their consideration. They are specially com- 
mended to the advocates of gambling in any form. 

This chapter contains the harvest of the gamblers. We 
point to the following cases as the strongest arguments why 
the law should be enforced and why gamblers should be 
hurled from power. 

These arguments are particularly commended to the at- 
tention of the " eminent gentlemen of wealth and position'' 
who have petitioned the Legislature to " improve the breed 
of horses " at the expense of the morals of the community. 

A former town treasurer of Union, N. J., arrested for the 
defalcation of about $3200, confessed to having taken and 
lost it in Barclay Street pool rooms. 

A former clerk of the New York Ferry Company stole 
$2800 before being detected, which he also lost in the same 
manner. 

A father, a former member of the Legislature of the 
State of New York, called at our office, saying his son, while 
at college, had stolen his mother's watch and pawned the 
same to raise $100 to gamble with. 

George Dorrance was arrested for stealing $1500, 
which he lost in Hunters Point pool rooms. 

A trusted clerk in a large mercantile house on Broadway, 
New York, in a few weeks' time managed to embezzle over 
$10,000 from his employer to gamble with. This case was 
brought to our notice by the employers of this thief, who 
sought our aid and assistance in the matter. 



SPECIAL ARGUMENTS. 



167 



Another clerk of a Broadway bank confessed to stealing 
over $33,400, all of which he spent in gambling. 

In Orange, N. J., a bright young man committed sui- 
cide, leaving as a parting message to his friends, " An uncon- 
querable habit of gambling has rendered life intolerable." 

A few months ago at Newark, N. J., a youth pleaded 
"guilty of murder in the second degree," for killing a friend 
at the gambling table. 

A young man formerly employed by Fussell & Co. was 
brought to our office in New York, and confessed to stealing 
over $1800 in small sums from his employers to gamble 
with. 

A young man was sentenced by Recorder Smyth, in 
New York, to two and one-half years' imprisonment for 
stealing $175 worth of jewelry. His plea was, " I have im- 
bibed a taste for gambling." 

A treasurer of a church, crazed by gambling schemes, 
embezzled $1400 of a trust fund to gamble with. 

One Saurbraum lost $500 in the Coney Island pool rooms, 
July, 1883, of moneys not belonging to himself. 

A cashier in a banking house in Pine Street claims to 
have lost $30,000 of his employers' money in gambling. 

Michael McKensie, age seventeen, embezzled $133, which 
he lost betting on the races at Brighton Beach last 'summer. 

A clerk, of 23 Maiden Lane, upon being arrested for 
stealing three gold watches in March last, when asked by 
the court, " What made you do this ? " replied : " I bought 
pools on horse races and became heavily in debt." 

April 11, 1885, a mother writes to the Brooklyn Eagle 
as follows : 

" I have two sons. One of them occupied a good position in a large 
house in New York, where he earned a large salary. He commenced 
buying pools on horses so that the influence and excitement of it caused 
him to neglect his business and in a short time leave his position alto- 
gether. The other son is fast following in his footsteps, and God only 



j6g gambling outrages. 

knows where they will turn up. I state these facts to show what trials 
and heart-aches a great many mothers have to endure after bringing up 
their boys to manhood, only to see them ruined through betting on 
horses, and I only hope that the time is not far distant when pool-sell- 
ing will be abolished." 

In the Brooklyn Union, June 5, 1885, we find that T. H. 
Halstead, a boy, stole $85 from a trunk belonging to a clerk 
in a grocery store and went to the Jerome Park races to 
spend it, where he was apprehended. 

The Brooklyn Eagle, July 16, i88£, records that Thomas 
A. Broughton yesterday broke open his grandmother-in- 
law's trunk and stole $355 in gold to go and see the races. 

In the New York World, September 3, 1885, we find 
that M. Floury, an official, having been detected of embez- 
zling public funds, committed suicide. He was led to steal 
by his heavy losses at gambling. 

Says the Brooklyn Union, Sept. 13, 1885 : " A once pros- 
perous Greenpoint merchant goes to the dogs by reason of 
attending horse races and pool playing. A once prominent 
merchant has been turned out of the house by his wife and 
made to shift for himself. She said she had given her hus- 
band but a short time previous $200 to go away and never 
return ; but he followed his old habit of attending horse races 
and pool rooms. He soon lost the amount and came back 
for more." 

In the Brooklyn Union, Oct. 4, 1885, we find the follow- 
ing item : 

"Ruined by Betting.— Gambling and horse races ruin an Ad- 
miral's son. How William H. Cooper got into trouble. A model 
young man until he began backing the races. Loses $8000 on one 
race. He was charged with having obtained $3000 under false pre- 
tences." 

New York Tribune, Oct. 8, 1885. — John Fuller loses 
$5000 at gambling. 



SPECIAL ARGUMENTS. ^9 

New York Sun, Nov. 16, 1885.— Thomas D. Wright, a 
young man, loses $90 at gambling. 

New York Sun, Jan. 4, 1886.— Young Frederick Fiskel, 
this city, stole $75,000, which he spent in gambling at the 
races. 

Morning Journal, Feb. 18, 1886. — Edward Davison ruined 
by gambling. Neglects to support his family and pawns 
everything that he can lay his hands on to get money to 
spend in gambling. Last week he took his overcoat from 
his back and pawned it to get money to gamble with. His 
wife drew $17 from the bank, that had been placed there 
for her boy, to pay her rent with. 

Brooklyn Eagle, July 1, 1886.— Harry Wheeler, an agent 
of the Long Island Railroad Co., lost $500 at gambling. 
An investigation of Wheeler's accounts revealed that he was 
about $500 short, and he would have been arrested had not 
his father promptly made good the deficiency. 

In the Brooklyn Standard of July 2, 1886, we find that 
Robert J. Blood, New York, a collector, attempted to com- 
mit suicide last night by shooting himself. On Tuesday 
Blood lost $400 by gambling on Miss Woodford, and this 
money had been collected from the customers of Evans and 
had not been turned over or an accounting given of it. A 
cursory examination of the books has been made. It is 
believed that the collector embezzled something like $200. 
It is thought that the wounded man cannot live. He had a 
wife and children. 

Again in Brooklyn Standard, July 22, 1886.— Joseph Fog- 
arty, a lad 16 years of age, forges checks and is another 
victim of pool-selling at Coney Island. 

A long account in the New York World, Aug. 31, 1886, 
discloses that L. Symons has kept a butcher store in the 
city of Brooklyn for more than twenty years. A month 
ago he disappeared, leaving, as it has since been found, a 
long list of creditors. It is believed that Symons committed 



jjq GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

suicide, as nothing has been heard from him. The total 
losses gone to the pool-sellers, it is said, will reach nearly 
$80,000. 

Still later in the Brooklyn Standard, Oct. 11, 1886. 
— Ruined by gambling. When Henry Brown, a watchman 
' in the employ of Ovington Brothers, was arrested upon a 
charge of grand larceny, he confessed his guilt and said 
that the money he derived from the sale of the goods was 
invested by him in the policy shop of Henry Dela Motta. 

Brooklyn Standard, Oct. 18, 1886. — A victim of the gam- 
blers. A. M. Pinkley was found dead in bed yesterday at 
the Henderson House, where he had been staying for a 
week. On the Friday before he had lost $180 at the races. 

From the New York World, May 8, 1886, we take the 
following : 

" Mrs. Hale, a young woman who is not married six months, entered 
Recorder Schleicher's court in Union Hill yesterday morning. She 
said that she had only been married six months, and had lived happily 
until her husband began to squander his money on races and then 
came home and abused her. He had left home, and after three days' 
searching for him she found him in the house of a disreputable woman 
in North Bergen." 

The New York Tribune of Dec. 27, 1886, contained the 
following editorial on the sad suicide of a young man who 
became desperate from his losses betting upon horse 
races : 

" That was a pitiful cry which the suicide from a Brooklyn ferryboat 
sent from his watery grave on Christmas eve — ' Keep away from horse- 
racing and pool-rooms.' It was not in harmony with the spirit of the 
joyous Christmas-tide, but there is a lesson here worth heeding, a ser- 
mon more impressive, doubtless, than many preached yesterday in our 
pulpits." 

In October last a bright young man of about twenty- 
eight years of age, having a wife and three small children, 
called at our office and desired an interview with the 



SPECIAL ARGUMENTS. 



171 



writer. After a little he confessed to having stolen more 
than $2500 from his employer. His story, briefly told, was 
to the effect that in June last he visited the Coney Island 
Jockey Club race course and made a bet with some of the 
gamblers. Unfortunately he won a small sum. This; 
seemed to turn his head. He conceived the idea that he 
could speedily make a fortune. He used all his own sav- 
ings and then, to use his own words, " borrowed from the 
money drawer of his employer." Again he lost and again 
" borrowed " to help make good his losses. From the race 
course he was led to " Big Mike " Murray's gambling saloon 
in New York, where in one night he lost over $1000. All 
this while he was lured on by the gambler's false beacon 
that " my luck will soon turn," until, becoming desperate 
from his failures to win, unable to meet his deficiencies, with 
a horror of disgrace and exposure, in a desperate moment 
he went down to the wharf in Brooklyn one night to commit 
suicide. He said : " I thought of my wife and children, and 
of the additional disgrace to come upon them, and I deter- 
mined for their sakes to be a man, confess all, and suffer 
the consequences." 

The same week a father, a general salesman, who was 
associated in a large wholesale dry-goods house years 
ago with me, called, seeking my advice concerning a young 
lad seventeen years of age who had stolen his mother's gold 
watch to pawn to get money to gamble with. Bursting into 
tears, he afterwards acknowledged the young man to be his 
oldest son. 

How many cases, equally as sad and appalling, are con- 
stantly coming to light ! 

Must these facts go for naught ? Is there not an un- 
answerable argument in these wrecked lives ? What of the 
home circle ? What has the mother, or the wife and inno- 
cent, helpless children, in the homes of the victims of 
these gambling passions done, that their hearts must thus be 



172 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



pierced with agony no tongue can tell and their heads 
bowed with shame and mortification over the downfall of 
their loved ones ? 

Is there not something in this county and State of more 
account than horse-flesh, especially when the improvement 
of the stock costs such a price ? Yet respectable men, men 
of wealth and position, composing these jockey clubs, are 
ready to advocate the system, even in the face of such 
horrors, and cheerfully divide blood-money with these 
gambling harpies ! 

Other interesting facts concerning secret manipulations are 
constantly coming to the surface, illustrating how un- 
scrupulous men manipulate the very contingency upon which 
the pool is sold or the bet made. The gambler secretly 
manipulates, while the public blindly invest their money upon 
the contingency he is operating. 

June 29, 1884, the Brooklyn Union, in reporting a race at 
Sheepshead Bay the previous afternoon, says, in speaking of 
the defeat of a horse named " Eole " : 

" Eole was in superb condition and ran nobly. Most of those who 
stood in full view of the finish hailed Eole as the winner. Indeed, it 
looked beyond doubt that the horse would win. But it seemed as if his 
jockey did not intend that he should win. Instead of keeping to his 
work, he made no effort to urge the animal forward, and by sheer 
negligence lost the race. Mr. Walton had placed his thousands on 
Eole, and before this race considered his jockey, Donohue, second to 
none in this country. Men who ought to know said that the book- 
makers were up to their dirty work again. It was openly stated on the 
course that Donohue had been bought up by the gamblers. The result 
of the book-jack Eole race disgusted even the most tolerant with the 
book-making fraternity, and proved beyond question how disastrous to 
true sport is their presence at the track." 

From the New York World we find as follows : 

" Yesterday was the last day of the autumn meeting of Jerome Park, 
and large fields and good racing, with their inevitable accompaniment 
of heavy betting, were the result. Horses from all over the country 



GAMBLERS' TACTICS. 



73 



were entered in the handicap sweepstakes, purses, and steeplechase that 
made up the programme of six events. From what could be learned last 
night the fraud perpetrated was the most gigantic ever known." 

It will be recalled that a few years ago a scene occurred at 
the Monmouth Park race track between Francis T. Walton 
and James E. Kelly, " boss " gambler. Mr. Walton, better 
known as the " American Plunger " on the English race 
courses, was the proprietor of the St. James Hotel and con- 
tracted for the cleaning of the streets of New York south 
of 14th Street. According to the Tribune of July 28, 1882, 
" Mr. Kelly declared that Mr. Walton had Marathon ' pulled ' 
in the race with Hospodar on Thursday of last week. Mr. 
Kelly further accused the Plunger of dishonest practices, say- 
ing he bought up the owners of horses as well as the trainers 
and jockeys, and was responsible for bringing American 
racing into disgrace." 

In the discussion that followed in the public press some 
of the tactics possible on the race track were discussed. In 
describing some of these the Tribune further says (in 
speaking of a certain man) that " on the day before the race 
he would quietly visit the owners of each of the horses 
entered for a certain event and would ask each what he 
thought of his horse's chances of winning ; and when he dis- 
covered the most confident owner, would say to him, ' I'll 
bet you $1000 to nothing that your horse does not win the 
race.' The purse offered would perhaps be only $300 or 
$500, and the owner would see the wisdom of forcing his 
horse to win even if he was compelled to ' stiffen ' the other 
horses entered for the race. Then this man would go to the 
jockey -and would say to him, ' Do you think you can win 
the race ?' Should the jockey reply in the affirmative, he 
would say, ' I bet you $500 to nothing that you do not.' 
That would be enough to make the jockey risk his life in at- 
tempting to win it." 



174 



GA MBL ING O UTRA GES. 



Then the testimony of the book-maker is given, which 
says that " horses were ' stiffened ' up, that is, filled with 
water or fodder just before the race, so as to throw them out 
of condition." 

Later, when this matter was brought up for action before 
the Jockey Club, it was announced in the Herald that 
there were "counter charges," and there were a number of 
cases cited where horses were " pulled " to enable another 
horse to win, and where attempts had been made at such ar- 
rangements and had failed. 

It was alleged at this time that as high as one thousand 
dollars had been paid to induce the jockey to "pull "the 
horse, and that jockeys were brought in who swore that they 
had been paid to " pulF' the horses, and further, that the 
"boss" gambler himself had been guilty of the same 
charges that he claimed " The Plunger " was guilty of. 

Without attempting to pass upon the truth or falsity of 
these charges made at that time, and simply referring to 
them for illustrations, it will still be seen that there is sus- 
picion in the minds of even the book-makers, and that they 
have to guard one against the other. While they are thus 
looking out for their own interests, what becomes of the 
interests of the great public who know nothing of what is 
going on behind the scenes and whose property is at the 
mercy of these schemers ? 

Frequent statements have been published by the press that 
telegraph wires have been tapped, private wires connected 
with gambling dens in New York and elsewhere, so that 
gamblers could thus be advised in advance so as to take ad- 
vantage of their customers. For instance, at French pool 
the holders of tickets upon the winning horse receive the pool, 
less a percentage to the boss gambler. Being advised before- 
hand of the results of the race, the " boss " sends his stool- 
pigeons to purchase tickets upon the winning horse, and thus 
defrauds the holders of winning tickets in just proportion to 



GAMBLERS ' TA CTICS. 



175 



the number of tickets he buys of his own men at the booths. 
This scheme is worked away from the race course by pool 
gamblers — placed where returns are received by telegraph. 
These are some of the inducements offered to the public 
by the gambling fraternity. These are the scientific methods 
of " improving the breed of horses." 



!^6 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



CHAPTER XI. 

SARATOGA. 

At Saratoga Springs gambling is not called " improving 
the breed of horses." Gambling of all kinds is tolerated 
there because, it is claimed, it would " ruin Saratoga," and 
" all of the big hotels would have to close," if the law against 
professional gamblers should be enforced. 

WHO ARE THE GAMBLERS THAT ARE THE LIFE OF SARATOGA ? 

Who are these mighty men of valor that support upon 
their shoulders the town of Saratoga Springs, with all its 
best interests ? Who are the celebrities whose attractions 
are so powerful and the support which they render the town 
of Saratoga so great that in comparison with which its 
health-giving springs go for naught ? 

It may well be asked : " What is the little to wn of Sara- 
toga Springs, with all its interests, compared to the proper 
administration of law and justice in the Empire State ? " 

Last summer at Saratoga there were professional gamblers 
from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Delaware, Maryland, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, while others were from the city of New 
York — non-residents of the town of Saratoga Springs. These 
non-residents of the State of New York stood side by side 
with local officials — Deputy Sheriffs and Constables — all 
engaged in violating the law. While these non-residents 
and official gamblers were thus violating the law, other peace 
officers, with the insignias of their office upon them, stood 
where they could witness and know the facts and permitted 
the laws of the State to be openly trampled under foot. 



THKEA TS OF GAMBLERS. ! « - 

Warning after warning came to our office that any attempt 
to enforce the law at Saratoga would be met with bloody re- 
sistance. Information was brought to us that gamblers were 
not only there from other States, but that numerous lawless 
characters had been drawn to Saratoga by these gambling 
opportunities, and that it would be easy to have some of these 
strangers assault the agents of this Society and then es- 
cape, as there would be no interference on the part of local 
authorities; and if there was, the gambling spirit was so 
strong, and their control over the officials so complete, that 
nothing would be done with the assassin. A case where the 
proprietors of one of these gambling saloons had deliberately 
shot down a man on the public street and then escaped, 
together with another case where a man was hacked to pieces 
in front of one of the large hotels by a mob of gamblers, was 
cited to shcAv the absolute recklessness of these men and the 
lawless condition of that town. These were presented as 
" awful examples "—reasons for us not to proceed. 

In July, 1886, an appeal was made by some of the better 
class of citizens of Saratoga to this Society for us to move 
against these crimes. The last week of July the writer, ac- 
companied by Mr. M. J. Sullivan, one of his assistants, visited 
Saratoga in person. As it afterwards turned out, the fact 
that we had gone to Saratoga was telegraphed from Albany 
by some person unbeknown to us, and the papers the next 
morning announced our presence. We knew that whatever 
was done must be done secretly and at once. After secur- 
ing lodgings in a private house, as soon as it became dark, 
the night of our arrival, the writer went to a barber, shaved 
off his side whiskers, which he had worn for years, dressed 
himself in light apparel, and went, not only into the head- 
quartei»s of the Saratoga Racing Association, near the Club 
House on Putnam Street, but also into the Club House itself, 
kept by Albert Spencer and Charles Reed. This was 
known as the "John Morrissey gambling den." The 



i/8 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



doors open freely to the public, one opening from Put- 
nam Street and one from East Congress Street. In one 
room were no less than three double roulette wheels and lay- 
outs and four other banking games, including faro and other 
games — all in full operation. 

At the headquarters of the Racing Association " auction 
pools " and " combination pools " were sold in full view, with 
windows and doors opening to the street, so that even pass- 
ers-by could see and hear all that was going on. This place 
was each night thronged with people gathered there to gam- 
ble. We secured the evidence against the parties in these 
two places before we slept the first night. 

The next morning, changing our apparel again, we went 
out to the race course, and there found fifteen or sixteen 
gambling booths where the firm name or the name of the 
gambler was displayed at the head of a blackboard upon 
which were the names of the horses of each race, with the 
odds the gambler was giving against each horse. In front of 
each of these booths stood the boss gambler, calling out the 
odds he was giving and bidding for trade. To the left of 
the grand stand was a little plot or pavilion fenced off with 
an iron fence, and under this tent or pavilion were these 
gambling booths. On the fence was a sign, " BETTING 
RING." Just inside of the gate through this fence stood a 
detective-sergeant on guard who belongs at police headquar- 
ters in the city of New York, a man well known about this 
city. Directly back of where he stood was a " French pool " 
box where a deputy sheriff was the principal seller and a lo- 
cal constable his assistant, who recorded the bets. At an- 
other stand another one of the constables of Saratoga County, 
with his assistant, ran another " French pool " box. Then 
following the circle further around were men from Detroit, 
Cincinnati, Louisville, and New York city, and other places. 
In and out were peace officers with their insignias of office 
upon them. 



GAMBLER THREA TS TO KILL. 



179 



We secured the evidence against fifteen of the principal 
gamblers at this place. We then went back to our rooms, 
and after dinner took a stroll on Broadway, going into 402 
Broadway, which was next door to the District Attorney's 
office, where we found three men engaged as pool gamblers ; 
a roulette layout was in full operation, while in a room ad- 
joining were two faro banks, one of them in full blast. 
Here we found policemen in uniform with their badges of 
office upon them, while out of the faro bank windows we 
could look into the District Attorney's office. 

Within twenty-four hours after reaching Saratoga we had 
obtained the evidence against twenty-nine gamblers. Think- 
ing it wise policy to defer any further investigations till the 
next day, and in order that we might more carefully write 
out a description of the men and our dealings with them and 
what we had witnessed, we kept our rooms. 

The next morning we were waited upon by friends and 
advised to leave town. Threat was brought to us that " if» 
we remained our body would be sent home in a box " and 
" our blood spilled upon the streets of Saratoga." 

Trusting in the all-powerful One as our shield and de- 
fence, we determined to remain and do our duty at all haz- 
ards. It seemed, however, wise for us to prepare the papers 
and complaints in the cases where we had the evidence. 
This required nearly all of Wednesday and Thursday. 
Other threats came in with words of warning, and so great 
was the excitement that we were not able to get further evi- 
dence at that time. So fierce was the opposition that we 
were boycotted by hackmen, while threats were heard on 
every side. Then a delay seemed necessary in order that 
we might have a public meeting to counteract the sentiment 
against law and order. 

The pastors of the churches met together, and it was re- 
solved to hold a public meeting. This meeting was held on 
the third of August, 1886. Rev. Herrick Johnson, D.D., of 



j So GAMBLING OUTRAGES 

Chicago, presided. Rev. Joseph Cook, Rev. W. F. Terrett, 
of Saratoga Springs, and others spoke. The following gen- 
tlemen were Vice-Presidents, all of whom, I believe, gave 
their consent to the use of their names for this meeting, to 
wit : Hon. Henry Hilton, Spencer Trask, Alanson B. Trask, 
. John W. Ehninger, Dr. R. C. McEwen, E. W. Fuller, Dr. R. 
Hamilton, W. A. Shepard, Dr. S. J. Pearsall, Prof. H. A. 
Wilson, E. C. Clark, S. A. Richard, L. W. James, Rev. C. 
F. Dowd, Charles S. Smith, E. R. Atterbury, W. H. Mc- 
Caffrey, Rev. Dr. J. B. Smith, Prof. G. W. Yates, Rev. Dr. 
James Brophy, Bishop Foster, Rev. Dr. J. L. Withrow, Rev. 
T. W. Jones, Rev. W. R. Terrett, Rev. R. F. McMichael, 
Dr. S. V. Leach, Rev. Z. Osborne, Rev. C. J. Young, Prof. 
E. M. Jones, Dr. T. B. Reynolds, Rev. A. Proudfit, Rev. J. 
N. Crocker, Rev. John McMenomy, Rev. Joseph Carey. 

Again the writer was warned not to attend this meeting, 
under threats of assault, if not of assassination, Relying 
upon the Divine hand for guidance and direction, we went to 
this meeting, which was held in the Baptist church in Wash- 
ington Street. It was said that at least ioo gamblers were 
present. The writer was met almost as soon as he came out 
of his rooms and followed to the door of the church by cer- 
tain parties who boasted that it was their intention of as- 
saulting him. Among the number* were the deputy-sheriff 
gambler and a town policeman, the latter being the 
aggressor and ringleader. 

Passing over the excitement and dangers of that hour, suf- 
fice it to say that the meeting was a grand success, and, under 
Providence, made it possible for the agents of this Society to 
remain in Saratoga, and on the fourth, fifth, and sixth days 
of August following this meeting to arrest twenty-three of 
1 the twenty-nine gamblers against whom we had evidence and 
complaints. We raided the Club House, and seized the 
three double roulette tables and one gaming table, the others 
having been removed before the officer reached the place. 



SARATOGA GAMBLERS ARRESTED. jg[ 

No. 402 Broadway was closed effectually for the time being, 
all of the gambling paraphernalia having been removed. 

It was reported that the day we placed our complaints in 
the hands of the District Attorney no less than twenty- 
eight gambling saloons closed their places and moved away 
their paraphernalia. Certain it was that in places where 
roulette wheels and layouts and faro banks were run in full 
blast when we first went to Saratoga, these games closed 
temporarily. 

No person not acquainted with the facts can form any 
conception of the absolute control the gamblers have over 
Saratoga. Citizens, merchants, hotel keepers, and others 
were afraid of being boycotted if they attempted to interfere 
or lend their influence against this gambling fraternity. 

August 4, 1886, the complaints were laid before Mr. 
Justice Barbour, of Saratoga, who not only promptly issued 
his warrants, but rendered every assistance and protection to 
the agents aforesaid. He did his duty bravely and is de- 
serving of much praise. 

Strange as it may seem, however, when these gamblers 
were notified of our complaints against them, like Captain 
Scott's coon, each one of them "came down without a shot 
being fired," came voluntarily into court, waived examina- 
tion, and gave bail to await the action of the Grand Jury. 

The question naturally arises, What guarantee, if any, had 
been given by the local authorities that insured this docility 
on their part ? That the District Attorney and local authori- 
ties knew of the open violation of law they will not deny, 
nor would any person who visited Saratoga believe them if 
they did deny it ; for these gambling games were carried on 
so openly that the fact was patent to every one. 

But notwithstanding the fact that there was positive evi- 
dence secured, and that the gamblers were apprehended 
and held in bail to await the action of the Grand Jury, the 
Grand Jury which met in October last at Ballston, N. Y., in 



jg 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

the Oyer and Terminer Court, over which his Honor Judge 
Potter presided, ignored the most positive evidence presented 
to them, which evidence was writte'n down by the District 
Attorney. Not a bill of indictment was found against a 
single one of these twenty-three gamblers. Indeed, we 
brought into court witnesses other than our own witnesses, 
and in some instances at least five witnesses were examined; 
yet notwithstanding all this, there could not be found enough 
men on that Grand Jury who regarded their oaths sufficiently 
to order a bill of indictment. The evidence of guilt was 
firmly sustained against the gamblers, and was not contra- 
dicted, and in some instances the violations of law were known 
to some of the members of that Grand Inquest. 

Let it be remembered that the " keeping of a room, 
paraphernalia, or place for gambling purposes " is indictable, 
and that in each of these cases the crimes complained' of 
were committed so publicly that any person could have seen 
and known that they were being committed. They were 
committed openly, and every act of the gamblers was open 
to public view. Yet with that fact brought to the attention 
of that Grand Jury, these men were willing to go on record 
as ignoring the evidence, regardless of their oath, by which 
they were bound to find according to the evidence and the 
law. I speak thus positively because I know personally of 
the absolute character of the evidence submitted. 

The following were members of that Grand Jury, as pub- 
lished in the Saratogian, September 23, 1886 : 

Charlton. — Charles Haines and Edward Merchant. 

Clifto7i Park. — Alexander T. Knowlton. 

Edinburgh. — Samuel A. Brownell. 

Half Moon. — Daniel Dunham. 

Milton. — Thomas D. Colson, John Richards, E. F. Grose, 
Isaac K. Grennell, and Sylvester S. Gould. 

Malta.— Walton Haight. 

Saratoga Springs. — Lewis Wood, Sidney A. Rickard, J. H. 



OA THS OF GRAND JURORS. r g 3 

Walbridge, James McLaughlin, Lewis Wagman, and Charles 
D. Thurber. 

Saratoga. — George Clark, Amos Salsbury, and DeWitt 
Thomas. 

Wilton.— Jesse B. Thorn. 

Waterford. — James Byrnes and Charles E. Devitt. 

NATURE OF EVIDENCE THEY IGNORED. 

Our complaints contained two counts. One affidavit for- 
mally charged the statutory offence, while the second was 
really a formal examination of the witness. 

In this connection it will be of interest to observe the oath 
as prescribed by law, under Section 245 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, of the Grand Jury, to wit : 

" You, as foreman of this Grand Jury, shall diligently inquire and 
true presentment make of all such matters and things as shall be given 
you in charge; the counsel of the people of this State, your fellows', and 
your own you shall keep secret ; you shall present no person from envy, 
hatred, or malice; nor shall you leave any one unpresented through fear, fa- 
vor, affection, oi- reward, or hope thereof ; but you shall present all things 
truly as they come to your knowledge, according to the best of your abil- 
ity. So help you God." 

Section 246 provides the following for each member of the 
Grand Jury. After the foreman has been sworn, the bal- 
ance are sworn as follows : 

" The same oath which your foreman has now taken before you on his 
part, you and each of you shall well and truly observe on your part. 
So help you God." 

In order that the public may be informed of the nature of 
the evidence against these criminals, I desire to present a 
specimen of the evidence we obtained against some of these 
men. For instance : at the Club House there were two men 
at one roulette table, dealing (who were positively identified), 
and the game of roulette was being played, bets were being 



3 4 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



made by players and money lost. The witnesses saw the 
paraphernalia, saw the game dealt, saw the money paid by 
the players, saw them receive money when they won and 
pay in their chips when they lost. Of faro the same is true 
at the same place. 

At 402 Broadway, first floor, directly off the street was a 
saloon, in the first room back of which two men were selling 
pools. In order to show exactly what they did, we purchased 
pools of these men and produced them in evidence against 
them. The pool, in each case, was recorded by them upon 
a book in out presence, and also upon a paper which they 
handed to us. In the next room adjoining was a roulette table 
and layout in full blast, where players were losing their money 
almost as fast as they paid it out for chips. Within a few 
feet of this was a faro bank, where we also saw game after 
game played, saw money lost and won, and saw the parapher- 
nalia kept and used by these men in violation of the law. 
The dealers and lookout were all positively identified. 

At the race track we purchased a pool ticket of a Deputy 
Sheriff, he received the money for it, and his assistant, the 
Constable, recorded it. This pool ticket happened to be a 
winner. In order to more plainly establish the evidence and 
the transaction, we made a copy of the ticket and cashed it 
in, and then bought another one, so as to be sure to show the 
transaction. We kept the money as an exhibit in the case. 
This all was taken before the Grand Jury. We also saw the 
paraphernalia, the " French pool " instrument used in re- 
cording these bets, all of which and any of which is, in it- 
self, sufficient to have indicted these men. 

The Secretary of the Grand Jury, Mr. Walbridge, said to 
the writer : " What will be the expense of trying these men 
if we indict them ? " The writer replied that he respect- 
fully submitted he had no right to consider that question in 
the matter of the guilt or innocence of these men. This 
man then said that he "was a tax-payer in the town of Sara- 



GRAND JURORS IGNORE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE. 



85 



toga, and that he should consider that question." He doubt- 
less did consider this or some other question rather than the 
evidence that was submitted by witnesses who were uncon- 
tradicted. 

The next Grand Jury for that county met January, 1887. 
In the mean time the term of Mr. John Foley, who was then 
District Attorney, having expired, he was succeeded by Mr. 
Hamilton, the new District Attorney, who came into office 
January 1, 1887. In order that Mr. Hamilton might be in- 
formed of the facts, the letter presented below was sent to 
him with the request, as will be seen, that these cases be 
brought before the Grand Jury. 

We maintain that our correspondence faithfully brings 
home upon officials a knowledge of the facts, and places the 
responsibility of non-enforcement of law against gambling 
upon them. 

It may be a technical excuse that the Grand Jury did not 
indict these gamblers in October last, but that would in no 
wise justify such reckless indifference to the flagrant, per- 
sistent, and open violations of law. " It is the duty of all 
District Attorneys to inform against and prosecute all per- 
sons whom he has reason to believe offenders against these 
laws." So says Section 349, Penal Code. 

In order to prevent the bonds of these gamblers from 
being dismissed and to bring them before another court, the 
following letter was sent the presiding Judge : 

October 7, 1886. 
Hon. Judge Potter, 

Ballston, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: — It is announced in the morning papers here that the 
Grand Jury in the court over which you have the honor to preside failed 
to find bills of indictment against those persons charged with violating 
gambling laws. 

I respectfully present to your Honor that the evidence against the 
twenty-seven persons complained of by myself and Michael J. Sullivan 
is of the most positive character, and the proof before the Grand Jury is 



1 86 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

absolute in its nature. The minutes taken in writing by the District 
Attorney wili confirm what I say. 

From statements made to me by a member of the Grand Jury, and 
also statements made by Mr. Wallbridge, the Secretary, I am positive, 
and am informed and verily believe, that the jury have allowed consid- 
erations other than law and evidence to control their actions. Mr. Wall- 
bridge, the Secretary, said in my presence, to and in presence of the 
Grand Jury, that if the Grand Jury indicted these men it would cost the 
county #50,000. I said : " You as a Grand Juror have nothing to do with 
this. You are not allowed to consider this in connection with these 
cases. You are sworn to find according to law and evidence." He re- 
plied before the Grand Jury that he should consider that matter in the 
consideration of these cases, and I submit to your Honor that for this 
jury to ignore the absolute and positive evidence as laid before them is 
a reckless disregard of their oaths, in contempt of law and your Honor's 
charge, and against the welfare of this community. It is a revolution- 
ary and dangerous proceeding. I earnestly appeal to your Honor to 
sustain the right. Will you not examine the record, and as some of 
these men are ignorant and unused to court matters, charge them as to 
their duty ? They have nothing to do with the cost of trying these cases or 
the deciding of the evidence of guilt. Wallbridge said : " I am a large 
tax-payer, and I tell you I shall consider this " — the cost of prosecution. 

These gamblers openly defied and violated the law and continued so 
to do after arrest, as I am informed and verily believe. They 
boasted that they controlled matters, that nothing could be or would be 
done. If the rumors of the dismissal of these cases be true, then, I 
respectfully submit, I am more than justified in appealing to your 
Honor to take this jury in hand and make them understand and do 
their duty under their oaths as jurors. Otherwise the reproach of out- 
raged law and their boast of their being able to control courts and 
juries must continue. I am sure your Honor will understand the outrage 
upon justice, when you examine the evidence we laid before this jury. 

If desirable, I will gladly come to the court and make any affidavit 
required to further the ends of justice. 

I have the honor to be, with very great respect, dear sir, 

Your obedient servant, 
(Signed) Anthony Comstock. 

I am informed by Mr. Foley, then District Attorney, that 
the bail-bonds against these gamblers continued in force. 
The plea of " cost of prosecution " is a most absurd and 



LETTER TO DISTRICT-ATTORNEY HAMILTON. 



37 



specious one. The Court and District Attorney exist, and 
are paid whether the gamblers are tried or not. The law 
and the evidence were very clear. A conviction in these 
cases would have enabled the court to impose a fine which 
would more than cover the costs of prosecution. The follow- 
ing letter was sent to the new District Attorney : 

New York, December 7, 1886. 
Hon. T. L. Hamilton, 

District Attorney, 

Saratoga County, N. Y. 
Dear Sir :—l beg to call your attention to the following cases, to wit : 
People vs. Charles A. Cook, 
" J. F. Waring, 
" " Edward J. Beaman, 
" « John H. White, 
" " John Lee, 
« " John S. Davis, 
" » John Fryer, 
•* " James Minnick, 
14 u Leo Meyer, 
" " James Gallagher, 
44 " J. F. Finn, 
" " William M. Carroll, 
" " Joseph Cotton, 
« " Peter Knight, 
44 " Geo. Bowman, 
" " Henry Davis, 
" " Christian W. Schaffer, 
" " Michael J. Cummings, 
" " Alex. J. Clarke, 
44 " Geo. J. Viall, 
" " Jas. H. Vanderbergh, 
44 " Edwin McGoughan, 
44 " Chas. W. Medinger. 
As you are doubtless aware, gambling has been openly carried on in 
the County of Saratoga for years. I am informed by an attorney who 
resides part of the year in Saratoga Springs that you have been elected 
as District Attorney, on the anti-gambling platform, and that it is your 
determination to enforce the laws of the State against any who violate 
the same. 



j38 gambling outrages. 

I need not say to you that every honest citizen hails this with delight ; 
and I desire to extend to you my most cordial and hearty co-operation 
in what I have no doubt you will find, in many respects, a very difficult 
task. 

The foregoing parties were arrested and held for the action of the 
Grand Jury last summer. They were brought before the October Grand 
Jury, and notwithstanding the most positive and absolute evidence of 
guilt presented and uncontradicted, the Grand Jury failed to indict a 
single one. 

In order that you may be fully prepared in these cases, I have simply 
to call your attention to the complaints, which set out fully and specifi- 
cally the offences which each party is charged with. I would further 
ask your consideration to the minutes of the Grand Jury, which are 
written out fully in each case. 

One of the Grand Jurors said to me in substance as follows : that if 
these parties were indicted, it would add to the tax list of the county 
to secure their trial and conviction, and that that was a consideration 
which would influence him in his findings as a Grand Juror. I 
protested then and there, and went to the presiding Judge with the 
statements thus made, and I am advised that there were considerations 
other than that of the Judge's charge or the sworn testimony of the 
witnesses which led the Grand Jury to fail to indict the parties complained 
of. In view of these facts, I asked the then District Attorney, Mr. 
Foley, and the presiding Judge not to permit the bonds to be dismissed, 
and I was informed that all the cases were to be sent to the next 
Grand Jury. 

I am informed that the court which meets in January will be the next 
Grand Jury; and I respectfully ask that all of the cases maybe brought 
before the coming Grand Jury, and that the witnesses who were ex- 
amined before the last Grand Jury may be called and further examined 
in the premises. The minutes of the Grand Jury will furnish you the 
names of the witnesses in the case of Spencer & Reed, proprietors of 
the Club House, and also proprietors of the race track. Also the wit- 
nesses in the case of Cale Mitchell, the proprietor of the other gambling 
establishment raided upon Broadway, Saratoga. Mr. M. J. Sullivan 
and myself are the witnesses in all these cases, and we will accept ser- 
vice of subpoena through the mail and be on hand subject to your 
orders. 

As I have other matters to look after, I would respectfully ask that 
you will give us a few days' notice, so that I can arrange my other cases 
that I happen to have in any other courts. 

I beg to say to you that you may be assured of the heartiest co-opera- 



LETTER TO HON. CHARLES O. TAP TAN. 



189 



tion on the part of this office in reference to these or any other cases 
that may come up during your administration. 
I have the honor to be, 

With very great respect, sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 
Secretary. 

To insure success, that there should be no lack of knowl- 
edge on the part of the Court, the following letter was also 
sent to Hon. Charles O. Tappan, Potsdam, N. Y., the judge 
who was to preside at the Court of Oyer and Terminer, at 
Ballston, N. Y., at the next term in January, to wit : 

(Dictated.) 

New York, December 7, 1886. 

Hon. Charles O. Tappan, 

Potsdam, N. Y. 
Dear Sir : — 

Having been informed that you are to preside at the court in 
Saratoga County, and will have charge of the Grand Jury in the month 
of January, 1887, I beg most respectfully to present, on behalf of the 
law-abiding citizens of that county, and also on behalf of this Society* 
that for years gambling has been openly carried on in Saratoga County 
at Saratoga Springs, in defiance of Sections 344 and 351 of the Penal 
Code. 

Notwithstanding that Section 344 makes the keeping of a room and 
apparatus for gambling a felony, two men, Reed & Spencer, kept a Club 
House at Saratoga where the banking games of faro, roulette, etc., 
were openly carried on. In divers and sundry other places faro banks 
and roulette wheels were run openly — so openly, indeed, that a person 
could walk in from the sidewalk and see these banking games in full 
blast, there being no doors of restriction. 

Professional gamblers from other States, especially from Michigan, 
Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and particularly 
from the city of New York, came to Saratoga and openly violated and 
transgressed these laws during the past season. The local authorities 
took no action against it. Some of the prominent citizens of that 
county made an appeal to this T Society, asking us to send officers there 
to get the evidence and have these men arrested. I was one of the men 
detailed for this work. I had with me one of my assistants, Mr. M. J. 
Sullivan. 



I9 GAMBLING OUTRAGES 

We personally visited these places and saw the gambling games 
going on ; visited the race track, where there were some fifteen or more 
places or booths occupied by gamblers ; and among these gamblers thus 
openly violating the law was one Deputy Sheriff and two Constables 
from the town of Saratoga Springs. 

I beg to present that we secured the most positive and absolute evi- 
dence of guilt against some twenty-eight or twenty-nine gamblers, 
twenty-three of whom were arrested and held for the action of the Grand 
Jury- 

At the October term of the court at Ballston the witnesses were ex- 
amined. Their testimony was taken down in writing and is now in the 
minutes of the Grand Jury. This evidence was not contradicted nor 
were the witnesses impeached in any way, and yet not a single bill of 
indictment was found against one of these gamblers, notwithstanding 
the absolute evidence of the guilt of the defendants, at least by two eye- 
witnesses in each case, and in some cases four and five witnesses. 

While before the Grand Jury I was asked such questions as these: 
" Mr. Comstock, do you propose to pay the county for the expense of 
prosecuting these men in case we indict ? " I replied : " No ; I don't." 
" Will your Society pay the expense of prosecuting these men ? " I re- 
plied that I submitted that the question was improper and that it" had 
nothing whatever to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendants. 

The Secretary of the Grand Jury informed me that he was a tax- 
payer in Saratoga, and that it would have very much to do with his ver- 
dict, for if they indicted these men it would cost the county $5o,ooo'to 
try them. I said that I could not conceive such a thing was possible; 
but that, in that case, I submitted to the Grand Jury that that was a 
matter they had no right to consider. The Secretary said he " should 
consider it." And from my conversation with this gentleman, and with 
others on the Grand Jury, I am satisfied, beyond any question, that the 
Grand Jurors, or so many of them as voted not to find indictments, 
voted not to find them in the face of most absolute and positive evi- 
dence of guilt. 

Mr. Foley, the then District Attorney, told me that he told the 
Grand Jury that " the evidence was full and absolute of the guilt of the 
defendants." I went to the presiding Judge and laid the facts before 
him, and he said that "if they did not find bills, the only thing to do 
was to bring the matter before the attention of the next Grand Jury." 
He also informed me that he had not been advised of the facts at all, 
and made no special charge to the Grand Jury concerning this particular 
evil. 

I therefore beg to present to your Honor these facts, and in the in- 



NO ACTION A GAINST GAMBLERS. l g l 

terest of law, order, and justice I beg to ask, if your Honor has any 
doubt of my word, that you will examine the minutes of the last Grand 
Jury in the cases, a list of which I present herewith. Our examina- 
tion was taken down in writing and is very full. And if you find that 
the statements I make are correct, and that there is absolute evidence 
against these parties from at least two eye-witnesses, Mr. Sullivan and 
myself, I respectfully ask that these matters may be brought before the 
coming Grand Jury for such action as the evidence and the law 
warrant. 

With the list of names I append a brief of one or two cases showing 
how these statutes have been construed in other courts, in order that 
your Honor may have the facts before you concisely without being 
obliged to take the time to look them up. 

I have the honor to be, 

With very great respect, sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) Anthony Comstock, 
Secretary. 

There was enclosed a list of names in this letter of all 
the cases named in the foregoing letter to Mr. Hamilton. 

We were in hopes that these two communications would 
result in rescuing the administration of justice from the 
thraldom of the gamblers and secure indictments against 
all of the guilty parties. At this writing, however, no wit- 
ness has been called by the District Attorney, and, so far as 
known, no steps have thus far been taken to enforce the law 
against these gamblers. 

Whether any responsibility rests upon the District Attorney 
or the courts of Saratoga County, this one thing is clear, 
that the proprietors of faro banks, roulette tables, pool and 
other gambling games of Saratoga — crimes of the grade of 
felonies — have the power to say that the laws shall not 
be enforced, and their word is law seemingly, so far as 
the local authorities are concerned. 

Let thoughtful citizens add together the power now 
wielded by the lawless classes in Kings and Saratoga 
Counties, and then say whether there is not in this at least 



jg 2 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

an alarm signal calling upon them to provide and fortify 
against the further encroachments of these crime-breeders. 

The scourge of gambling is growing more and more odious 
to honest citizens. In two counties professional gamblers 
are stronger than law. Their influence is more potent than 
oath of office over officials. In face of the fact that the Legis- 
lature has year after year been solicited to repeal or change 
these laws, and as often has positively refused to make any 
change whatever, yet in two counties at least, professional 
gamblers, many of them non-residents of these counties, 
and in some instances non-residents of the State, have 
boldly asserted their intention to defy the law, and by their 
flagrant, persistent, and open violations of law have set at 
contempt the administration of justice, while they jeopard- 
ize the best interests of the community and the State. . 

Do gamblers own the State of New York? Are they 
stronger than law, courts, or justice ? 

General Catlin, in his very lame defence as to why he 
had not enforced the law against these pests, while he was 
District Attorney of Kings County, before the Bacon Investi- 
gating Committee swears : 

" No preacher had ever preached against it up to that time and never 
did up to last fall, to my recollection, in 1886. No steps were taken 
in any way, shape, or manner by the so-called moral element of the city 
of Brooklyn to put a stop to this pool-selling business." 

It will be remembered that in October last the clergymen 
of the city of Brooklyn inquired into the outrages in Kings 
County, and then made a presentment to the public. The 
latter part of that presentment is well worthy of considera- 
tion in this place. They say : 

" The claim made both by General Catlin and by Mr. Ridgway, that 
in their failure to vigorously enforce the laws with respect to gambling 
they have had the tacit approval of the public, shows conclusively that 



AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC. 



*93 



part of the burden of responsibility for the miscarriage of justice rests 
with a community silent hitherto upon those matters, and indicates the 
necessity of explicit public utterance and decided action." 



We now appeal to the public. The facts are before you. 
The correspondence will show how faithfully and with what 
fidelity the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice 
has brought the attention of the courts to the outrages 
against law and justice. Good legal evidence has been se- 
cured and placed in the hands of District Attorneys ; and 
notwithstanding all, the servants of the people, under solemn 
oaths of office to the contrary, as we submit has been 
clearly established in this record, have permitted the laws 
to be set aside and have failed to discharge their duty as 
public servants. 

Is there not enough involved for the minister of the gos- 
pel to take public issue with these crimes and lend his 
voice and influence to the enforcement of law ? Are there 
not patriotic reasons enough involved to awaken every law- 
abiding citizen to the dangers that threaten the State ? 
Will it not be easier to overthrow these crimes and their ad- 
vocates now, before they further corrupt our youth and lay 
hold upon the highest interests of our State with a death- 
grip equal to the rum power of the day, than it will be to 
allow them to go on corrupting courts, officials, and public 
servants until the State of New York shall be worse than 
the State of Louisiana is to-day under the corrupt influences 
of the Louisiana Lottery, and then attempt it ? 

To turn over the State to a gang of merciless gamblers, and 
allow them to defy courts, violate laws, trample under foot 
justice, and treat with contempt the Legislature of the State, 
is to undermine the very foundations of our free institutions. 
It is destruction of equity, peace, and morals. It is against 
common right. 

At Verne, Switzerland, there is a statue of a monster 

13 



194 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



devouring helpless children. So this greedy monster, Gam- 
ing, is constantly wrecking the lives of those brought within 
its reach, jeopardizing every public and private interest to 
satisfy its greed for gain. 



THE I VES POOL BILL. \ g 5 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE "IVES POOL BILL." 

Since the foregoing pages of this book were written many 
important events concerning the gambling method of im- 
proving the breed of horses have passed into history. 

Strange as it may seem, with the findings of the Ministers* 
Committee of October last, and of the Bacon Investigating 
Committee, both of which clearly demonstrated the utter law- 
lessness of the gambling fraternity, and with a full exposure 
of the facts Concerning this lawlessness repeatedly laid be- 
fore the public by the press of this State— in the face of all 
these facts stands one still more appalling, that the Ives Pool 
Bill was even a possibility, much less could become a law. 

This law, under the pretence of restricting this evil, has 
practically condoned the past offences of gamblers who 
had been repeatedly indicted, while it legalizes the crimes 
which are the very root and essence of dishonesty and cor- 
ruption. To legalize and sanction public gambling is to 
strike a death-blow at industrious habits. // indorses dis- 
honest practices. To give the sanction of law to the dishon- 
est practices of the pool gambler is to put a premium upon 
crime and sell out the morals of the community to the high- 
est bidder. 

The Ives Pool Bill was cunningly worded. It was spe- 
ciously drawn so as to make it appear upon its face that its 
purpose was to provide a fund for the " improvement of cat- 
tle, sheep, and horses." No reader of this bill unless fa- 
miliar with the provisions of Section 351 of the Penal Code 
would see anything in it to even arouse suspicion of its true 



196 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



character. The "nigger in the fence " is the suspension 
of Section 35 1. The bill as originally drawn proposed to sus- 
pend Section 351 of the Penal Code upon every race track in 
the State for twenty days each year. It also proposed to re- 
peal all laws that in any way conflicted with its provisions. 

This bill was rushed through the Assembly with a bare 
majority of two votes. It went over to the Senate, and on 
the 3d of May the Senate Judiciary Committee reported it 
to the Senate, refusing to wait until after a mass meeting 
that was to be held on that evening (May 3) in the Academy 
of Music, Brooklyn, could send delegates there to protest 
against its passage. 

A grand mass meeting was held in the city of Brooklyn 
in the Academy, on the evening of May 3, 1886. The 
Academy of Music was filled. The platform was crowded 
with eminent men. The following protest was unanimously 
adopted, and at once sent to Senator Griswold at the Senate 
in Albany : 

Whereas, A bill known as the Ives Pool Bill has passed the As- 
sembly of the Legislature of the State of New York, and is now before 
the Senate for final passage ; and 

Whereas, This bill proposes to abrogate, suspend, or repeal Section 
351 of the Penal Code in the interest of combination, French and auc- 
tion pools, and book-making, both upon horse-racing as well as upon 

elections ; and 

Whereas, Well-known and professional gamblers have for years 

flagrantly, persistently, and openly violated existing laws, which crimes 

committed the Ives Pool Bill now proposes to condone, and to legalize 

the same hereafter upon every race course in the State ; and 

'Whereas, Embezzlements, defalcations, robberies, breaches of trust, 

thefts, intemperance, suicides, and murders are the result of gambling 

passions ; and 

Whereas, Both in England and in America, under Common Law, it 
is held that a common gambling house, kept for lucre or gain, is/>er se a 
common nuisance, as it tends to draw together idle and evil-disposed 
persons, to corrupt their morals and ruin their fortunes ; and 

Whereas, The scheme of pools as proposed to be legalized by the 



OPPONENTS TO POOL BILL, Ig ~ 

Ives Pool Bill is one in which the public are to be invited to hazard 
small sums of money for the purpose of receiving as prizes larger sums, 
which has been decided by the Court of Appeals to be a lottery, and is 
therefore in violation of the Constitution of this State; and 

Whereas, Section 7 of said bill will repeal all existing laws against 
lotteries and pool-selling ; therefore 

Resolved, That we, citizens of Brooklyn, in mass meeting assembled, 
this 3d day of May, 1887, in the city of Brooklyn, do enter this our most 
solemn protest against the passage of the Ives Pool Bill, or of any 
similar bill which proposes to legalize gambling of any kind in the State 
of New York. 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the Chairman of 
this meeting to present this protest to the Senate at Albany, and to take 
such action as shall be necessary to defeat the passage of this bill. 

Resolved, That copies of these resolutions, attested by the Chairman 
and Secretary of this meeting, be furnished to the press of New York 
and Brooklyn for publication. 

Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage, D.D., Rev. Edward P. Inger- 
soll, D.D., H. D. Dumont, Esq., J. Warren Greene, Esq., and 
Hon. A. W. Tenny were appointed by this meeting a com- 
mittee to go to Albany, and if possible to defeat this iniqui- 
tous measure. The next day this committee, accompanied 
by the Secretary of the New York Society for the Suppres- 
sion of Vice, went to Albany. The next morning de- 
spatches were sent to Senator Griswold of Kings County, 
and largely through his efforts the measure was sent back to 
the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and a hearing was 
had that afternoon. This resulted in the striking out of the 
" repeal " clause, and also in amending the bill so as to 
limit the racing between the 15th of May and the 15th of 
October each year, instead of the entire year, as the bill orig- 
inally allowed. These amendments were found to be nec- 
essary as a compromise measure on behalf of the advocates 
of the bill in order to secure a report for the bill after our 
hearing. With these amendments the bill was reported to 
the Senate a few days afterwards. 

May 12 the bill was brought up in the Senate and passed. 



1 98 



GAMBLING O UTRA GES. 



But in order to secure sufficient votes to pass it a still further 
compromise was found to be necessary, and upon the motion 
of Senator Parker, of Albany, the matter which now appears 
in Section 7 was added. With that compromise measure 
added the bill was passed, having just the requisite seven- 
teen votes in the Senate necessary to pass it. 

The following is a full text of the bill, together with the 
names of the members of the Assembly and Senate who voted 
for it, to wit : 

AN ACT 

Prescribing the period in each year during which and the terms under 
which racing may take place upon the grounds of associations incor- 
porated for the purpose of improving the breed of horses, and sus- 
pending the operation of certain sections of the Penal Code. 

The people of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, 
do enact as follows : — 

Section 1. A tax of 5 per cent, upon the gross amounts of the receipts 
for admission on race days to race tracks or grounds on which racing is 
had, owned, leased, or conducted by a racing association incorporated 
under the laws of the State of New York for the purpose of improving 
the breed of horses, whether for the improvement of the thoroughbred 
or the trotting horse, shall be annually paid by such associations to the 
Comptroller of the State of New York within fifteen days after the 1st 
day of December in each year. 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the President or Treasurer of every as- 
sociation liable to be taxed, as provided in this act, to make a report in 
writing to the Comptroller annually, on or before the 1 5th day of Novem- 
ber in each year, stating the amount of its gross receipts for admission 
to its race course on race day, which shall be duly verified by the oath 
of its treasurer. 

Sec. 3. Whenever any such association shall neglect or refuse to make 
such report at the time prescribed in this act, the Comptroller is author- 
ized to examine, or cause to be examined, its books and records, and to 
fix and determine the amount of tax due in pursuance of the provisions 
of this act. In case of the non-payment of the amount of tax so ascer- 
tained to be due, together with the expenses of such examination, for a 
period of thirty days after notice, any such association so in default, in 
addition thereto, shall be liable to pay to the State for each such omis- 



TEXT OF THE IVES POOL BILL. j qq 

sion or failure a sum not less than $500 nor more than $1000. The 
same may be sued for and recovered in the name of the people of the 
State in any court having competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General 
at the instance of the Comptroller. The Comptroller is also authorized 
and required to report any failure of any such association to make such 
report and to pay its tax to the Governor, who, if he shall be satisfied 
that such failure was intentional, shall thereupon direct the Attorney 
General to take proceedings in the name of the people of the State, to 
declare the charter of such association to be forfeited and its charter 
privileges at an end, and for such intentional failure the charter privi- 
leges, corporate rights, and franchises of every such association shall 
cease, end, and be determined. 

Sec. 4. The number of days upon which races may be conducted upon 
any race track or ground is limited to thirty days in each year, and dur- 
ing that number of days only races shall be authorized and allowed up- 
on such tracks or grounds, during which time the same may be kept open 
for the admission of the public, subject to the conditions and limitations 
prescribed by the acts, or the several amendments thereto, under which 
the said associations were incorporated, and the provisions of Sections 
351 and 352 of the Penal Code shall not apply to the grounds of such as- 
sociations as shall have complied with the provisions of Section 1 of 
this act during the number of days in each year during which the said 
races are hereby authorized. Such racing and pool-selling in this State 
shall be confined to the period between the 15th day of May and the 
15th day of October in each year, and all pool selling shall be confined 
to the tracks where the races take place and on the days when the races 
take place. 

Sec .5. The Comptroller shall issue to every racing association 
paying a tax under the provisions of this act a receipt for the same, and 
such receipt shall be presumptive evidence of such payment. 

Sec. 6. All revenues which shall be received by the said Comptroller 
from the taxation prescribed in this act shall constitute a fund which 
shall be annually disbursed on behalf of the State for prizes for improv- 
ing the breed of cattle, sheep, and horses at the various county fairs 
throughout the State by the State Agricultural Society. 

Sec. 7. Any person who shall engage in pool-selling at any time or 
place except as heretofore stated shall be guilty of a felony, and upon 
conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Prison for a 
period not less than one nor more than five years. 

Sec. 8. This act shall take effect immediately. 



200 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



ASSEMBLYMEN. 



Yeas— Messrs. Bates, Baucus, Berry, Bonnington, Brennan, Bulkley, 
Burke, Bush, Cantor, Collins, Conover, Cutler, Dalton Dickey, Evans, 
Farrell, Finn, Fitch, Giese, Goerss, Gorman, Graham, Greene, Grippin, 
Guenther, Hagan, Haggerty, Hayes, G. H. Henry, L. S. Henry, Hill, 
Hines, Hornidge, Ives, Kenney, Kunzenman, Langbein, Longley, Mabie, 
Manville, Martin, Mase, Maurer, Maxwell, McAdam, McCann, 
McCarthy, Mclntyre, McLaughlin, McMahon, Moore, Mulry, Newton, 
Power, Prime, Reeves, Reitz, Ryan, Seaver, Shea, Sheehan, Charles 
Smith, Martin A. Smith, Robert H. Smith, Sullivan, Wafer, Wemple 
Winne — 69. 

senators. 

Yeas— Messrs. Cogeshall, Cullen, Daly, Dunham, Fagan, Hoysradt, 
McMillan, Murphy, Nelson, Parker, Pierce, Plunkitt, Raines, Reilly, 
Traphagen, Wemple, Worth — 17. 

A hearing was had before the Governor on the 23d of 
May, when a large delegation from Brooklyn and other 
places appeared before him. Rev. Dr. Talmage, of Brooklyn, 
Rev. Dr. MacArthur, of New York, and other eminent 
gentlemen appeared before the Governor to urge him to 
veto this bill. Telegrams and letters were received in large 
numbers from representative men, ministers and eminent 
citizens, from all parts of the State. Churches of all denom- 
inations either sent delegates or their protests against 
the bill, and their demand was that " the bill be vetoed." A 
brief was filed with the Governor showing that the bill was 
unconstitutional. Yet, notwithstanding all, on the 25th of 
May, at midnight, this bill became law, because David B. 
Hill's ear was deaf to the appeals of the moral and religious 
elements of this State. 

After the hearing, and before the bill became law, the 
following circular was sent out in the city of New York, 
predicated, as will be seen, upon the assurance of the gam- 
blers that the Governor would permit the bill to become 



TRICK TO EVADE THE LAW. 



201 



law. This circular was telegraphed in full to Governor Hill, 
showing him exactly how the evil was to be spread over the 
city, and continued, if the crimes which the Legislature had 
declared to be FELONIES by their amendment should go 
into effect. The circular read as follows : 

Sir: — The selling of pools and book making within the gates of the 
race tracks of this State having been legalized by recent legislative 
enactment, it is certain that those who desire to invest must either them- 
selves visit the course or have their business transacted by others . 

In view of the frequent impracticability of the former alternative, the 
following proposition is respectfully submitted for your consideration : 

I will call at your office every morning, take your order, and place 
your money at the track in any manner you desire, all transactions to be 
considered strictly confidential. 

The charges will be very moderate — 5 per cent, on sums of $30 or 
less; $1.50 on all sums between #30 and $60, and $3 for all sums from 
$60 to $500. It will be seen that the cost of placing the lowest sum at 
the track will be less than the actual expense of going to the track for 
the purpose, and far below what it would cost (considering the differ- 
ence in the odds obtained) to place it in the city, even if such a thing 
were possible. 

This circular will be followed by a personal call, at which time, should 
you desire to take advantage of this convenient arrangement, further par- 
ticulars and satisfactory guarantee as to responsibility will be furnished. 

Respectfully, 

A. H. Mills. 
26 North William Street, City. 

The New York Herald, in announcing the action of the 
Governor the day following, says : 

" In memoranda filed with the Secretary of State the Governor gives 
the following reasons why he pursued the course he has in disposing of 
this important measure : " 

FIVE REASONS. 

First— The bill involves no constitutional question. 
Second— It involves no political question about which parties are di- 
vided. 



202 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



Third — It had a full, fair, and deliberate discussion in both houses 
and in the public press for weeks before its passage in the Legislature 

Fourth — It presents a question upon which public sentiment seems to 
be greatly divided and one peculiarly within the province of the Legis- 
lature to determine. 

Fifth — It regulates and restrains the selling of pools by permitting 
such sales during a limited period and at certain places only, and by 
prohibiting, under increased penalties, such sales at all other times and 
places, and imposes for the privilege a license fee or tax which is uni- 
form throughout the State. 

************ 

David B. Hill. 

Governor Hill declares " ttie bill involves no constitutional 
question." There are two sides to this question. To differ 
from him is the right of those who think more of morals than 
of votes. Look a moment at the other side of this constitu- 
tional question. 

There are two points which should be especially empha- 
sized in this connection. 

First, Article III. of the Constitution of this State provides 
that 

" No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or 
any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of said act, or which 
shall enact that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be applicable, 
except by inserting it in such act." — (Art. III., Sec. 17, Constitution, 1875.) 

Observe particularly two things under this head : 

First. The Ives Pool Bill suspends Section 351 of the Pe- 
nal Code without setting out the section in the bill, or nam- 
ing it in its title. 

Seco?id. Section 7 of the Ives bill raises one of the many 
crimes prohibited in Section 351 — pool-gambli?ig — to the 
grade of a felony, but is silent as to all the others, except to 
permit them on race courses. 

Third. Nothing in its title indicates that the Ives Pool 
Bill is to increase the penalties of Section 351 or change the 
grade of the crimes prohibited by it. 



G O VERATOR BILL 'S VIE WS. 203 

Fourth. The Ives bill pretends to say that offenders 
against Section 351, Penal Code, outside of a race course, 
are to be treated as felons, and are liable to " not less than 
one year nor more than five years' imprisonment," if they sell 
pools, and yet Section 351 is not inserted in the bill, as is 
required by Section 17 of Article III. of the Constitution. 
In the eager haste to get the bill through the Senate 
they have failed to amend the title of the bill, and have 
inserted into a law " prescribing the period in each year 
during which and the terms under which racing may take 
place upon the grounds of associations incorporated for the 
purpose of improving the breed of horses, and suspending 
the operations of certain sections of the Penal Code," an 
amendment to a penal statute, changing the crimes prohibit- 
ed from misdemeanors to felonies, and this too without in- 
serting the section of the Penal Code particularly affected 
in the act. 

Governor Hill says that it does not violate the Constitution- 
Will he say that such jumbled up legislation does not 
violate the spirit as well as the letter of Article III. suffi- 
ciently to have made a veto his imperative duty ? 
Let thinking people answer for him. 

Why should the one crime of pool selling be singled out 
and made the item of special penalties, and the other crimes, 
to wit, the keeping, occupying, or using of a room, tent, ten- 
ement, booth, or building, or part thereof, with paraphernalia 
for recording or registering bets or wagers, not be included in 
the same category ? 

Were there not good, sound reasons in these inconsisten- 
cies for a veto ? 

But consider the second point. 

"French pool, " which is prohibited by Section 351, and 
allowed by the Ives bill, is a lottery, and has so been declared 
by the courts in this country and England. 



20 a GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

If French pool is a lottery, then this law which permits it 
is in conflict with the Constitution again, where it says : 

"Nor shall any lottery hereafter be authorized, or any sale of lottery 
tickets allowed, within this State." — (Article I., Section 10, Constitution, 
1881.) 

The Ives bill permits tickets to be sold in French pool. 
These tickets are lottery tickets within the definitions of all 
our courts. 

Let the reader now carefully consider two things under 
his subject : 

First, get a clear understanding of what French pool is ; 
then apply the definitions of a lottery, as laid down by the 
authorities, to it. 

The question under discussion, then, is : Is the system of 
pool-selling which the Ives Pool Bill authorizes and permits 
for thirty days each year, upon each and every race track in 
the State, in conflict with the prohibition of the Constitution 
of the State of New York ? 

In this connection it is of first importance to clearly un- 
derstand what the Ives Pool Bill permits and what French 
pool is. This bill allows the keeping of paraphernalia upon 
every race track in the State during a period of thirty clays each 
year for the purpose of selling " French pools," " auction 
pools," and " combination pools " and for " recording bets 
and wagers, " not only " upon the result of any trial or con- 
test of skill, speed, or power of endurance between horses," 
but also " upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, 
speed, or power of endurance between men" It also allows 
pools to be sold and bets and wagers recorded upon the 
" result of any political nomination, appointment, or elec- 
, tion." 

We have not to deal in this discussion with book-making, 
which is known in the law as " recording bets and wagers," 
but simply with " French pools." 



FRENCH POOL A LOTTERY 



205 



To make it clear to the reader's mind that " French pool " 
is a lottery, let me show the practical working of " French 
pool." Let it be premised that there are ten horses to run 
in a certain race. The names of these horses are publicly 
displayed upon a blackboard, or otherwise, with a number 
opposite each name, which number each horse is known by. 
Tickets are sold by the pool-seller with numbers correspond- 
ing to those opposite the names of each horse. These 
tickets are usually sold at $5 each, anfl entitle the holder 
to a " share, chance, or interest " of whatever moneys remain 
in the pool after the pool-seller deducts his commission 
of five per cent. This amount can only be determined at 
the close of the race or when the sale of tickets ceases : 
and the tickets which draw prizes are only those sold upon 
the winning horse. The amount to be distributed by chance, 
or upon the contingency of the race, let it be supposed, is 
$1000. After the race is run the pool-seller deducts his 
commission from this amount. He then divides the pool 
into as many shares as there are tickets sold on the winning 
horse. Each ticket sold on the race represents a share, 
chance, or interest in the money in the pool, and all have an 
even chance of winning a prize. I omitted to state that as 
each ticket is sold it is recorded opposite the name and 
number of the horse upon which it is sold, upon an instru- 
ment designed for that purpose, or else upon a blackboard. 

Two hundred tickets must be sold to make up the $1000 
purse which is to be distributed as prizes. It is the chance of 
winning a part of this for which ticket buyers pay their $5. 
Suppose ten of these tickets are sold upon the winning 
horse, the ten persons who have paid $5 for the chance re- 
ceive each one-tenth of the pool less the pool-seller's com- 
mission, while the 190 others lose their money, although 
the 190 losers have each paid $5 for the chance of winning a 
prize, and until the lot was cast had an even chance with 
the others of winning a prize. 



20 6 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

First, take the definition of a lottery as it is laid down in 
the Penal Code : 

" Section 323. A lottery is a scheme for the distribution of property 
by chance among persons who have paid or agreed to pay a valuable 
consideration for the chance, whether called a lottery, raffle, gift enter- 
prise, or by some other name." — (Sec. 323, Penal Code, p. 135. People 
vs. C. D. J. Noelke, 94 N. Y. R., 141.) 

Now note the legal definitions of a lottery, as laid down by 
our Court of Appeals and other high courts. 

The Court of Appeals has defined a lottery in a case where 
the defendant was indicted for selling a lottery ticket, and 
yet where the defence was set up that it was not in form a 
lottery, but rather simply a bet or wager that certain num- 
bers would appear in a list to be drawn at a certain time. 
The evidence showed that the defendant made a bet that 
certain numbers would appear in a list that were to be drawn 
in a certain drawing then about to take place. The Court 
says : 

"The word 'lottery' has no technical legal meaning. It must be 
construed in the popular sense, and with a view of remedying the mis- 
chief intended to be prevented. 

11 It is defined by Webster as a ' scheme for the distribution of prizes 
by chance, or the distribution itself; ' and he defines ' lot ' as that which 
* causes, falls, or happens ; that which in human speech is called chance, 
fortune, hazard.' 

" Worcester defines a lottery as * a hazard in which small sums are 
ventured for the chance of obtaining a greater value.' 

"The language of Folger, J., in 56 N. Y., 424, may be adopted as a 
final result of the accepted definitions : 

" • Where a pecuniary consideration is paid, and it is to be determined 
by lot or chance, according to some scheme held out to the public, what 
and how much he who pays the money is to have for it, that is a lot- 
tery.' "—(Wilkinson vs. Gill, 74 N. Y., 66.) 

Again the Court of Appeals says, in reference to form : 

" The Courts have uniformly looked beyond the mere form or device 
of the transaction, and sought out and suppressed the substance itself." 



LOTTERY DEFINED. 207 

— (Govs, of Almshouse vs. American Art Union, 7 N. Y., 228. Hull 
vs. Ruggles, 56 N. Y., 424. ) 

" It is not necessary that there should be an organized institution, or 
that the scheme should be called a lottery. It matters not by what 
name it is called or what terms are used. ... It is said that the trans- 
action is a wager or bet that certain numbers will draw, and is there- 
fore not a lottery. This does not follow. 

" Every lottery has the characteristics of a wager or bet. ... A lot- 
tery, or game of device in the nature of a lottery, is not excluded from 
the operations of the statute because it also partakes of the nature of a 
wager."— (74 N. Y., 66, 67. People vs. Noelke, 94 N. Y., 141.) 

Says the Court of Appeals again : 

" Any game, or device of chance in the nature of a lottery, is within the 
prohibition of the statutes against lotteries." — (Wilkinson vs. Gill., 74 
N. Y.,63.) 

Iii defining a " lottery ticket " Chief Justice Bronson 
says : 

" A ticket need not be in the form of a written contract or agreement. 
It may be any sign, symbol, or memoranda of the holder's interest in the 
lottery.— (People vs. Taylor, 3 Denio, 100. Citing Com. vs. Chubb, 5 
Randolph, Va., 715. Com. vs. Pollard, Thatcher's Crim. C, 280.) 

Again a lottery is defined as follows : 

" So long as the event could not be predicted by the party concerned 
it would be uncertain and dependent upon chance in the only sense 
which the law has to take into account." — (Com. vs. Thatcher, 93 Mass., 
83. Com. vs. Wright, 137 Mass., 251. State vs. Clark, 33 N. H., 329.) 

But it is claimed that pool-selling is a harmless amuse- 
ment. Note what the Court of Appeals of this State says, 
in speaking of this " Constitutional prohibition against lot- 
teries," even though the objects were innocent. In the cele- 
brated case of the Govs, of the Almshouse of New York 
vs. The American Art Union, 7 N. Y., Reports 239, 241, the 
Court says : 



2o8 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

" The prohibition was not aimed at the objects for which lotteries had 
been authorized, but at that particular mode of accomplishing such ob- 
jects. It was founded on the moral principle that evil should not be 
done that good might follow, and upon the more cogent practical rea- 
son that the evil consequent on this pernicious kind of gambling greatly 
overbalanced in the aggregate any good likely to result from it." 

In speaking of the "universal passion for playing at games 
of chance," in this same case the Court says : 

" The indulgence of this passion was precisely what the Constitution 
intended to repress and prohibit. 

" The Constitution took away from the Legislature the power of de- 
termining whether this or any other lottery was of good or evil tendency. 
If it were to be admitted that the scheme is entirely harmless in its con- 
sequences, it would form no ground for making it by judicial const uc- 
tion"(or otherwise) "an exception to the general and absolute constitu 
tional prohibition." 

In this connection let it be observed that a ticket 
sold in any scheme called a lottery is as much a bet that 
the number upon that ticket will draw a prize as the $5 bet 
upon the number opposite the name of the horse in French 
pool is a bet that that particular horse or that particular 
number will win. 

Note what the Court of Appeals says of the element of 
chance in pool-selling : 

" Each party gets a chance of gain from others, and takes a risk of 
loss of his own to them." — (Harris vs. White, 81 N. Y., 539.) 

Is not this the very essential of a lottery ? Is it not true 
in every lottery ? But if this argument shall go for naught, 
.in New Jersey the highest court there has declared" auction 
pool," " French pool," and " combination pool " upon horse 
races "LOTTERIES." In England French pool is held to 
be a game of chance, as will be seen further on ; also a lottery. 

In the celebrated case of " State of New Jersey vs. Lovell " 
(one of the boss pool-sellers of the State of New York), the 



FRENCH POOLALO TTER V. 20Q 

defendant was indicted for " setting up, opening, and making a 
certain lottery, and for selling a lottery ticket therein." Upon 
the trial it was shown that his offence was the selling of pools 
upon horse races, as named above. 

The Court cited the definition of a lottery as given in Hull 
vs. Ruggles, 56 N. Y., 424 (since re-affirmed in Wilkinson 
vs. Gill, 74 N. Y., and more recently approved in People vs. 
Noelke, 94, N. Y.), and then said : 

" The scheme of pools set up by the defendant was one in which the 
public were to be invited to hazard small sums of money for the purpose 
of receiving as prizes larger sums. 

" But it was insisted on behalf of the defendant that, whether the 
person hazarding the small sum was to receive a larger one or not de- 
pended not upon chance, but upon his own good or bad judgment in 
selecting the horse upon which he placed his bet." 

The Court says in answer to this : 

" The physical condition of the horse and his rider, the fastenings of 
his shoes, the honesty of purpose that actuates his rider and owner in 
running him, the state of the weather and the track, and these circum- 
stances in the case of every horse that runs against him, are all matters 
about which the judgment of the outside bettor can avail him no more 
than the arithmetical calculations of chance can avail the dice thrower. 

" There is, however, aside from the result of the race, another element 
of chance in these games, which is clearly pointed out in Tollett vs. 
Thomas, L. R. 6, Q. B. 514, and that is the element which determines 
what the winner is to gain. That element in the « auction pool » de- 
pends upon how much others may bet against him, and in the ' French 
pool ' and ' combination pool ' upon how many others may bet as he 
does. None of the bettors, save the last one, can possibly learn these 
matters. I need not repeat what is said in the case cited as to these 
ingredients making the transaction a game of chance." 

And then concludes as follows in reference to the intent 
of the act for the suppression of lotteries : 

" Having a direct tendency to produce those pernicious mischiefs in a 
community which the act for the suppression of lotteries was intended 
to prevent."— (State vs. Lovell, 39 Vroom, 272.) 
14 



2io GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

Does not this evil come within the spirit of the constitu- 
tional prohibition against lotteries sufficient to have re- 
quired and justified a veto ? 

In the above case of Tollett vs. Thomas, Thomas had 
been convicted by two judges for selling tickets in what was 
then called "Pari Mutiiel" being precisely the same as 
" French pool.''' 

It came up upon appeal before the Queen's Bench, Lord 
Chief Justice Cockburn presiding. There were two questions 
brought before this court for their decision. 

11 1. Is the machine (for registering the tickets sold) an 
instrument of gaming ? 

" II. Is the game on which the wagering took place, under 
the circumstances stated, a game of chance ? " 

Says this high court : 

" Whether a horse race be in itself a game of chance or not, we can 
entertain no doubt that, if some additional element of chance be intro- 
duced, the wagering on a horse race may be converted into a game of 
chance. Thus, to use a familiar illustration, a lottery in which each 
individual draws a particular horse, on the success of which the winning 
of the stakes depends, would, we cannot doubt, constitute as between 
the parties to such a lottery a game of chance. In the present instance, 
an element of chance is introduced which, though not having any 
reference to the main event — namely, the result of the race in the 
winning of a particular horse — is yet essential to making the wager 
laid upon the winning horse profitable to the bettor. 

"The winning of the horse betted upon is of course the primary con- 
dition of the wager being won ; but whether the winning of the wager 
shall be productive of any profit to the winner, and more especially 
what the amount of that profit shall be, depends on the state of the bet- 
ting with reference to the number of bets laid on or against the winning 
horse — a state of things fluctuating from one minute to another through- 
out the duration of the betting. . 

" Now this being something wholly independent of the issue of the race 
as well as of the will and judgment of the winner, depending as it 
does on the will or caprice of the other persons betting, is a matter ob- 
viously of uncertainty and chance to the individual bettor, more especially 
in the earlier stages of betting. 



DE CISION OF U. S. SUPREME CO UR T. 2 \l 

" There being, then, this element of chance in the transaction among 
the parties betting, we think it may properly be termed, as amongst 
them, a game of chance." — (L. R. 6, G. B., 521.) 

Query : Is not French pool a lottery, and within the letter 
and spirit of the constitution of the State of New York ? 

Would a veto against the Ives Pool Bill have been mis- 
placed ? 

Speaking of the demoralization of this class of gambling, 
particularly " lotteries, " the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in a recent case, says : 

" That lotteries are demoralizing in their effects, no matter how care- 
fully regulated, cannot in the opinion of this court be doubted. Expe- 
rience has shown that the common forms of gambling are partially in- 
nocuous when placed in contact with the wide-spread pestilence of lot- 
teries. The lottery infests the whole community, enters every home, 
preys upon the hard earnings of the poor, and it plunders the ignorant 
and simple."— (Stone vs. State of Miss., 11 Otto. 818. Phalen vs. Va; 
8 Howard, 163, 168.) 

Place beside these words of wisdom of the highest court 
of this nation those words of equal weight and wisdom 
as quoted from that celebrated jurist, Judge Catron, as 
given in the foregoing pages of this book, and then say 
whether or no the operating of gambling paraphernalia in 
the midst of thronged multitudes, by trained and professional 
gamblers, is not an element of danger that this State ought 
to rise up against at once and crush out ! 

From the first introduction of the Ives Pool Bill, the gam- 
bling fraternity have acted upon an implied understanding 
that their pool bill was to become law. For instance, the 
day it became law the New York World contained the fol- 
lowing concerning the opening of the Brooklyn Jockey Club 
race track, which shows that their plans were completed and 
that the gamblers stood ready to move upon the public as 
soon as the ten days required by law had expired in which 



212 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



this bill should become law, unless the Governor vetoea it. 
Says the World, May 26, 1887 :— - 

" The immense betting pavilion was naturally a scene of great anima- 
tion between each of the races, and the betting stands were besieged by 
the speculators, but there was no demonstration and a placid serenity 
prevailed at the enjoyed immunity from police espionage. 

" The book-making firms were on hand early. There were sixty of them, 
and they quickly drew forth their betting booths. Much surprise was 
manifested at the absence of Kelly and Bliss from the arena, and many 
were the questions asked as to the reason of their absence. On inquiry 
it was ascertained that the firm was affluent enough to take a rest and 
that Mr. Kelly had assumed a retiring disposition. However, there 
were enough to supply the market, and the sixty stands were occupied 
by the following firms : 



No. 


No. 


1. Marshall & Co. 


27. Appleby & Johnson. 


2. A. M. Burton & Co. 


28. Murray & Co. 


3. J. Nathan. 


29. C. H. Thompson. 


4. Appleby & Johnson 


30. E. Croker. 


5. R. Hughes & Co. 


31. O. P. Keyes & Co. 


6. C. Heinman & Co. 


32. Straus & Co. 


7. J. L. Anderson & Co. 


33. Gale & Co. 


8. Worden & Co. 


34. G. Walbaum. 


9. Swatto & Co. 


35. Emery & Co. 


10. Corbett & Co. 


36. Ridge Levien. 


11. Irving & Co. 


37. W. J. Conner. 


12. Charles Davis. 


38. Spitz & Co. 


13. Appleby & Johnson. 


39. Cridge & Co. 


14. Eaton & Co. 


40. Henry Stedeker. 


15. Kirk & Co. 


41. Charles Reed. 


16. Michaels & Co. 


42. A. Anderson & Co. 


17. Spencer & Co. 


43. J. J. Gleason. 


18. McCloud & Mahoney. 


44. Downey & Co. 


19. Frank & Co. 


45. Hawkins & Co. 


20. P. Pappeheim. 


46. Hamell & Co. 


21. Mahoney & Co. 


47. Enright & Co. 


22. J. Hackett & Co. 


48. J. Shipsey. 


23. De Lacey & Co. 


49. J. K. Lane & Co. 


24. Medinger Bros. 


50. Joe Cotton. 


25. Shipsey Bros. 


51. John Daly & Co. 


26. E. T. Beaman. 


52. J. E. McDonnell. 



$540,000 l^AX. 2i 2 

53. Dimond & Co. 57. Sutton & Co. 

54. Gamble & Co. 58. Arthur Hackett & Co. 

55. Dexter & Co. 59. G. H. McCabe. 

56. Shaw & Co. 60. Philip Daly & Co. 

May 31 the Jerome Park races opened at Jerome Park, 
and the New York World further says that " the betting 
arrangements were under the responsible charge of Messrs. 
Kelly and Bliss, and early in the day the following firms 
drew stands as follows," presenting the list of the sixty 
pool-sellers named above. It is fair to say that the Brook- 
lyn and Jerome Park Jockey Club each received at least 
$6000 rental each day from these sixty gambling booths. 
As these professional gamblers can have thirty days of gam- 
bling at Sheepshead Bay, thirty days at Jerome Park, and 
thirty days more at the Brooklyn Jockey Club track, it is safe 
to say that their receipts on these three race tracks of money 
drawn from the pocket of the public and paid over to the 
jockey clubs alone amounts to $540,000 during these 
ninety days on these three tracks, and all for " improving the 
breed of horses." A tax of $540,000 levied upon the 
thoughtless public in order that the jockey clubs may race 
horses and afford gamblers an opportunity to rob the people 
to the utmost of their ability ! The $540,000 is only a 
fractional part of the receipts of the sixty gamblers. 

The Legislature did one thing in connection with the pas- 
sage of this bill that was commendable, and it is the only 
respectable thing about the whole matter ; and that was 
when they branded one of these robbery schemes — pool 
gambling — a felony. But look at the inconsistency of de- 
claring a crime a felony, and then setting up a board fence 
and saying to professional gamblers : " If you will come 
over on the inside of our fence you may commit these felonies 
every day from the fifteenth of May to the fifteenth of 
October each year, provided you change your base of 
operations every thirty clays." 



214 



GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 



This is what Governor Hill says " regulates and restrains 
the selling of pools by permitting such sales during the lim- 
ited period," etc. The history of gambling from the earliest 
inception of legislation against it down to the present time 
presents a record most disgraceful and demoralizing. Of all 
the shameful things that have ever come upon the State of 
New York this is the worst — to legalize the acts of profes- 
sional gamblers, many of whom are non-residents of this 
State, while others are ex-convicts and others still under sus- 
pension of sentence. And to permit them to rob the public 
under authority of law is the most iniquitous and outrageous 
of all. 

The advocates of this bill would never have presumed 
to ask such men as William H. Seward, John A. Dix, 
Alonzo B. Cornell, or Grover Cleveland, when they were in 
charge of the State, to consent that such a blot as this law is 
should be put upon the State of New York. No man who 
knew either of these men would have had the hardihood to 
ask their consent to a measure as iniquitous as this. 

Like the heathen mother who throws her babe into the 
Ganges to be devoured by the crocodiles which line the 
banks of that river, so these legislators who voted for this 
infamous law have practically taken our young men just 
starting in life and thrown them into the rapacious maw of the 
gambling fraternity, and made it legal for these crime-breed- 
ers to prey upon them, destroying their usefulness and their 
integrity. 

With one vote the Legislature provides a law to punish a 
thief, and with the other says to the professional gambler : 
" It shall be legitimate for you to allure young men to dis- 
honesty, and if they are ruined through your insidious temp- 
tations and influences, we will punish them and protect 
you." 

Of the influences which helped to make this measure a 



LOBB YISTS DUPE LEGISLA TORS. 2 1 5 

law the New York World, which advocated the bill with 
much zeal before its passage, June 3, 1887, says : — 

DUPED BY THE LOBBYISTS. 

ASSEMBLYMEN WHO CONFIDED IN THEM NOW NURSING 
THEIR WRATH. 

Money Promised for Legislative Votes Not on Hand when Called 
For — Threats Reaching Into Next Session. 

Albany, June 2. — There is weeping and wailing and mutterings of 
wrath among members of the last Assembly. There is joy, exultation 
and profit among members of the Third House. Having for five months 
defeated the wishes of the people in legislation, members of the As- 
sembly have just realized that they in return have been deplorably 
tricked by the lobby. The confiding and virtuous assemblyman has 
been duped by the shrewd and unscrupulous lobbyist. During the past 
session a constant source of amusement was afforded by the rivalry be- 
tween the Kenmore gang and the Delavan House gang. 

************ 

The difference between the two gangs was as great as their respective 
methods. The Kenmore gang were satisfied with 'promises, and paid 
them out liberally and, as the result shows, by no means satisfactorily. 
The Delavan House sports played for spot cash, or no sale. To the 
Kenmore horde was allotted the cable scheme, the scheme to take 
$1,000,000 out of the State Treasury under the guise that it was a tax 
upon widows and orphans, the Grooved-Rail Bill, and the Ives Pool Bill. 
There were millions in these jobs. The average price offered for votes 
was $250. The gentlemen who have had their eye-teeth cut in dealing 
with legislative lobbyists insisted that the money should be paid down 
before the vote was cast. Their terms were agreed to. Other gentle- 
men who were satisfied to depend upon promises were contented to wait 
until final adjournment. These are the men who in New York City, in 
Albany, and in the State at large are tearing their hair, muttering their 
wrath, and threatening vengeance upon the lobbyists who have sold 
them out. There is a number of them. 

It was given out last Thursday that members whose services had not 
been paid for would receive their compensation on Friday or Saturday. 
This compensation was placed as follows on the following bills: The 
Pool Bill, city members, $750; rural statesmen, $500. It is almost un- 



2I 5 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

necessary to say that many patriotic statesmen lent their services to the 
corporations who were backing these schemes for the money that was in 
them. 

Comments are needless. 

It was urged as an argument in favor of the Ives bill that 
" millionaires favored it." Millions of money cannot of it- 
self build up a noble character. A few dollars misappro- 
priated can blast one instantly for all time. The youth who 
have plenty of money to gratify their appetites and passions 
are usually not the best examples nor the purest or noblest 
characters. They may, by a lavish expenditure of money, 
cast a glamour over their loose and sinful living and find 
apologists for their wicked ways, but this does not insure 
noble men for the future. It is men of sterling character 
that this age lacks. The future demands true men. We 
need men — manly men, men who are clean, honest, true, 
and noble in thought, word, and deed, whether they have a 
dollar in their pockets or not. It is character, not money; 
it is morals, not horses ; it is worth, not popular favor, that 
the State must look to in the future for support and defence. 

It is claimed that this system of " improving the breed of 
horses " is necessary for the amusement of the people. 
History is full of the records of monsters who have amused 
the people by throwing human victims into the arena to 
be devoured by wild beasts. When such deeds shall 
receive the plaudit of approval from civilized nations it will 
be time enough to give a word of indorsement to schemes 
the very operation of which the experience of all ages de- 
clares to be against public morals and common right. 

The question is : Have gamblers more control in this 
State than moral and religious people have ? If not, then 
for the sake of public morals, common honesty, public 
policy, and for the preservation of the institutions of free 
government, let the ballot box speak next Fall. Let honest 
men be elected and a demand made on every side that this 



A PA THY OF GOOD MEN. 2 1 7 

iniquitous measure be repealed, and that Section 351 
of the Code be amended so as to make the crimes contained 
in it Felonies everywhere ; and make the penalty for non- 
enforcement of that law not only prompt removal from 
office, but barring forever from holding any office of trust 
any official who fails to do his duty. 

Public morals and public order ought not to be sacrificed 
for the sake of the gambling fraternity or any profits or con- 
tribution that may be made by them to political parties. 

May, 1887, must go down into history as the time when 
the State of New York was sold out to gamblers. This 
little book is an earnest and emphatic protest against the 
further carrying out of this contract made between politi- 
cians on one side and gamblers on the other. This 
contract was so iniquitous that the Governor of the State 
had not the courage to put his signature to it. Neither had 
he the wisdom and patriotism to veto it. This compact 
ought to be declared void, because it embodies in it princi- 
ples that are destructive of public morals, good order, public 
policy, and common honesty. 

It is the indifference of professional Christian men to the 
encroachments of evils flowing from rum, gambling, and a 
licentious and criminal press that makes many evils which 
prey upon the community possible. The religious press 
has not taken that bold, persistent, uncompromising position 
against these flagrant crimes which it ought to have taken. 
There is too much temporizing with these destructive ele- 
ments on the part of good men. Politicians have sold 
themselves out in many cases to the criminal element, and 
political bosses are little less than bribe-takers, as it is 
notorious that the protection of these crimes is the pap 
upon which they fatten. It was the silence of good men 
that gave tacit consent to the passage of the Ives Pool Bill. 
The opposition came too late to avail against its passage. 
Church members who frequent the race course and patron- 



2I 8 GAMBLING OUTRAGES. 

ize the betting ring do not heed the command : " Come 
out and be ye separate. Touch not the unclean thing." They 
are not governed by : " Ye cannot serve God and mammon." 
Every man should feel that the responsibility of checking 
these evils lies c rectly at his door. There must be indi- 
vidual action. Let every good man rally around the stand- 
ard of right, equity, and justice, strike down the robbers 
of the poor, raise voice and hand against the further 
encroachments of these monster evils, and cease not his 
activity until our State is reclaimed from the thraldom of 
dishonesty, intemperance, and uncleanness, and the power 
of the gambling fraternity. Let the war-cry be : " Down 
with the bosses who foster and protect crime of any 
kind." Let politicians who are mean enough to take blood- 
money, or blackmail the criminal class, feel that they 
cannot command or receive the votes of moral and upright 
citizens. Let the line be drawn upon the side of temper- 
ance, honesty, and moral purity, and let these virtues be 
cultivated, encouraged, and crowned with that fear of God 
which maketh rich and addeth no sorrow thereto. 



\ 



